- Ryan Lollis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was re-created because Ryan Lollis was promoted to Major League Baseball, indicating he will make his debut there soon, which makes him notable under WP:BASE/N. A deleted article already exists that is much more thorough than the new one that was created. Alex (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is that he's made one step closer to meeting WP:NBASE (which is on a page which says GNG has to be met anyway), so someone recreated it despite him not actually meeting it, so we should ignore a previous deletion consensus and restore a previous article?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The second he plays in a major league game, he will be deemed notable. And the odds of him playing in a game are about 99.5%, since those who get called up but don't play in a game number in the dozens. So, yes. Alex (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well according to the guideline you've pointed to he still needs to meet WP:GNG, so the second he plays he won't necessarily be deemed notable. If "called up" is good enough, why isn't that what the guideline says? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what it means is that anyone who's been called up is presumed to meet the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you it means something different to what it says? Since it says nothing at all about being called up. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, I phrased that poorly. If he plays in a regular season game then he's presumed notable. Otherwise he's just on the 40-man roster and nothing's changed. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-repost}} clearly does not apply to the article since the subject recently was recently promoted to Major League Baseball. Please speedy restore the article's history under the redirect since this is an uncontroversial request. This will allow the deleted content to be merged into this new article. Anyone who thinks the subject still is not notable will need to nominate the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Routine coverage in local rags when he was a college player do not support a claim of notability, despite the usual squeezing-blood-from-a-stone efforts above. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse the original deletion as the only possible outcome of the discussion. Not sure what else we can do here as the new article is an improvement on the original article with additional sourcing, so a G4 speedy deletion as a repost would not be valid.
Probably relist at AFD as I expect until he actually plays a game the consensus at AFD will be to delete but I could be wrong. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Well in that case he now meets WP:NBASE doesn't he? So I have struck my relist at AFD, as in that case I can't see there is any chance that the article would be deleted at AFD. The history has already been restored so I don't see anything we need to do here, bu of course permit the recreation if that is really necessary. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
