Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia Phillies minor league players

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. Wizardman 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Phillies minor league players

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per
WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Alex is being
WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Wikipedia community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol, Mosaic and Dirtlawyer. Rlendog (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a
WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (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.