Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaby Hernandez

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Hernandez

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

Last season, he had a 4.91 ERA, the year before that a 5.23 ERA, the year before that a 6.08 ERA. He is not a particularly notable minor league baseball player. Since he is still active, perhaps a merge would be best. Alex (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some trivial coverage whenever a new team picks him up, but has failed to crack a major league roster. Even a terrible one, like the Royals. Not generally notable or
baseball notable. » scoops “5x5„ 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

That's not actually true. He was on the 40-man roster of three different teams: the Mariners, the Red Sox, and the Royals. That's why he's got an article in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily meets
The Miami Herald, the 2005-2008 editions of Baseball America's annual prospect guide, etc. Please do research next time before nominating. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per Hit bull, win steak's sources. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several sources.
matt91486 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (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.