Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Williams (baseball)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williams (baseball)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is actually the second nomination. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Williams in 2007, when the article was kept for what I believe was a flimsy rationale.

The subject does not meet

WP:GNG

, as the subject has never played in the Major Leagues or any major professional league outside North America, and his role with the Indians was as a bullpen catcher, not an official coach.

It's telling that of the two sources that are meant to establish his notability, this one about the firing of the coaching staff doesn't even mention Williams, and the article suffers from neglect.

talk) 15:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our consensus about bullpen catchers has changed in the last 10 years. They are not considered coaches according to the rules MLB uses that dictate how many in uniform coaches a team can have. They are not included in the BASE/N presumption of notability granted to coaches, because most of them don't have sources to establish GNG. This individual is no different in that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines, at least from what's seen here. If there's something else about him that can be dredged up, I'm fine with re-creating the article. I just have a hunch there's probably something out there, but I couldn't find anything. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.