Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Papelbon

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Papelbon

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

Non notable minor league player. If you have the inclination of voting 'keep', first consider this question: would he be notable if his brother wasn't? Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even worth a merge; the career isn't going anywhere. THF (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 28 years old, never made it in triple-AAA and career in sharp decline? Sorry, not remotely notable. Yes, I'm sure we could fill Wikipedia up - were WP:INHERITED repealed - with articles based around puff pieces of Joanne The Mechanic, sister of the senator, but I don't consider the GNG satisfied when no one in creation would have noticed if the subject's family weren't famous. Ravenswing 18:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the GNG. Why he is covered in RSs is irrelevant as long as he is. DC T•C 20:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the AfD for Josh Papelbon, GNG states "presumed", which allows for cases like this, where an athlete fails WP:ATHLETE and any notability is inherited, to be considered to fail GNG. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's still in the Cubs system, a merge makes most sense at this point as per past precedence. Spanneraol (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Alex (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as those above. Never came close to being in the majors. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:21, 28 November 2010 (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.