Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Butts

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. I am closing this as keep to maintain consistency with other bullpen catchers (see rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade). However, my argument there was based on consensus, and consensus here is unclear: 4 editors (including the nominator) for deletion and four opposed, because two editors (Muboshgu and EBY) commented here but not on the other articles. For the other articles (not counting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi since it met GNG) there are five editors arguing keep (Alex, Kinston eagle, Spanneraol, Rlendog, and Pennsylvania Penguin) and two arguing delete (Wizardman and Bbny-wiki-editor). I still think the consensus is that bullpen catchers are coaches because Muboshgu and EBY did not base their arguments on WP:NBASEBALL, but if anyone objects I recommend holding a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), coming up with a broad consensus, and then relisting these articles if appropriate. Cerebellum (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Butts

Alan Butts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 21:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on the coaches page doesn't make him a coach. They just do that rather than have a separate "Bullpen catcher" section for one person. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you keep saying, a bullpen catcher is part of as teams coaching staff... they are the lowest members of the staff but they are definitely part of the coaching staff, which is why they are listed on the official coach roster.Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what you're talking about, and you've never been able to cite anything to back up your claim that a bullpen catcher is an official coach. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the word "coach" doesn't appear in the title, like it does for every other ACTUAL coach on an MLB roster? And if bullpen catchers are coaches, how come they generally wear numbers like #87 and #95, rather than normal numbers like the other (actual) coaches? Bullpen catchers are the bullpen equivalent of a batboy: They're support staff who serve a role during the game and just happen to wear a uniform. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that doesnt know what they are talking about. The team lists them as coaches on the website (with the accompanying bio), they are introduced with the coaching staff when they do on field introductions before opening day or playoff games, and when the team puts out a press release stating the coaching staff before the season they include the bullpen catcher as part of that list.[1][2][3] Spanneraol (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately dishonest. Mark Salas and Henry Blanco are former MLB catchers, so they're not typical bullpen catchers, and it's not surprising that they would be considered a de facto part of the coaching staff by the rest of the actual coaches. (You should also note that Blanco actually has the title "coach.") Alan Butts, on the other hand, is a support staffer along the lines of a batboy. He answers *to* the bullpen COACH. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the quickest examples i could find, there are plenty of others from other teams. Here the Braves are referring to Butts as part of the coaching staff.Spanneraol (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A social media intern posting a tweet is what you consider to be proof of Butts' status? You can't be serious. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a number of different things calling them coaches, but since you refuse to accept any of them because it doesnt jibe with your completely arbitrary world view... why bother? Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You haven't managed to post a single citation in support of your bizarre position that bullpen catchers are coaches. If your claim was true, you'd be able to find hundreds and hundreds of sources for it, just as there are THOUSANDS of sources out there for "first base coach" and "pitching coach" and "bullpen coach." By rule, MLB teams can have only one manager and seven coaches in uniform for games, and bullpen catchers don't count against that limit. Therefore, they're not coaches. If they were coaches, they'd count against the coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed multiple examples of teams referring to them as coaches. You just ignore them. Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 12:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong You've semi-dishonestly posted a couple links that talk about former major leaguers being referred to as de facto members of the coaching staff, which makes sense because they were veteran major leaguers. (One of your examples also has the word "coach" in his title, so it wasn't even an appropriate example.) Alan Butts, meanwhile, was added to the staff as support staff and he acts as support staff. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you are dense. I posted press releases from teams introducing their coaching staffs, which included bullpen catchers... they were from multiple teams not all of which involved former major leaguers... I can add even more of that sort of link... nothing dis-honest about it. I also mentioned that they are introduced during on-field introductions as part of the coaching staff. They are also included on the website as coaches, despite your insistence (without any evidence of the sort) that the team doesnt really mean coach when they say coach. Your insistence that the rules about the number of coaches that are in the dugout somehow means that they arent coaches doesnt even fly cause they arent in the dugouts and teams often employ additional coaches that dont have on-field duties. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You can't win on the merits so you're descending into insults. I've explained multiple times why bullpen catchers are listed on the roster. Pregame introductions mean nothing; all sorts of personnel are introduced during such ceremonies, including lower-level medical and athletic training staffers who don't have Wiki pages and who would be laughed off Wiki if anyone tried to create pages for them. Please read this and then count the number of coaches on the "manager and coaches" pages you keep relying on. In almost every case, you'll see that the bullpen catcher is the eighth or ninth guy listed, which means he's not, by MLB's definition, a coach. (The article says "in the dugout" but it should have said "on the field"; obviously, the bullpen coach doesn't sit in the dugout, but he counts against the seven-coach limit.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to be wrong, Bbny-wiki-editor. Admitting it is the first step. Alex (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, coming from you, since you're probably the world's expert on being wrong in a baseball AfD. (For the new people here, Alex is probably the all-time leader in being wrong in baseball AfDs.) But, anyway, I'd be happy to admit I was wrong if anyone could show that I am wrong. You guys haven't offered anything to refute the fact that bullpen catchers aren't coaches. You just keep making silly arguments about pregame introductions and random press releases. If you guys were right, there should be hundreds and hundreds of citations to support your position, just like there are hundreds and hundreds of citations for first base coaches and hitting coaches and bullpen coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbny, in the pre-game introudctions they introduce the coaches as one group, different from the other people... and you just offered your OPINION, with no evidence to back it up, as to why they are listed as coaches... the teams have additional coaches that arent part of the on the field coaching staff often. You just refuse to listen to reason, and have nothing to back up your claim. Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about pregame introductions. I just linked an ESPN.com story, from one of the sport's best-known writers, that should have cleared this whole thing up for you, and yet here you are, arguing the same nonsense. Also, "coaches that aren't part of the on-field coaching staff" aren't presumed to be notable, per BASE/N, so you're wrong about that, too. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "Being mentioned on the coaches page doesn't make him a coach. They just do that rather than have a separate "Bullpen catcher" section for one person." But the Braves page lists both coaches, which includes Butts, and other staff. [4]. So if they didn't consider Butts a coach they would just list him with the other staff. And even if they did not have that separate section for other staff, I am not sure what the basis is for your comment. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Since when is a fear of creating "red links" a reason to keep a page that doesn't pass GNG? The clear, common-sense solution is to delete bullpen catchers from the roster pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're making mistakes all over these AfDs. You should refrain from voting until you have a better understanding of things. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor Alan Butts never appeared in an MLB game. The above Keep vote is based on an erroneous justification. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbny-wiki-editor: I don't get what you mean by "Alan Butts never appeared in an MLB game". It said that he appeared in games before. But I am going to strike out my comment using WP:COMMONSENSE that the guideline does not include bullpen catchers.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 19:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have three people saying keep, none of which are going by any guidelines, and some of which are completely backwards in reading them. I trust the closing admin will actually look at the weight of the comments rather than numbers. Wizardman 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument Wizardman is whether these guys count as coaches... if they do then the policy says they count and I feel they are coaches despite what Bbny says.Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the argument, and you haven't been able to offer anything to refute the seven-coach rule discussed in the link above. You also haven't explained why bullpen catchers are unique among alleged coaches in not having the word "coach" in their title. MLB teams have any or all of bench coach, hitting coach, assistant hitting coach, pitching coach, assistant pitching coach, first base coach, third base coach, bullpen coach ... and bullpen catcher. Notice how one is different from the others? That should be a clue for you. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone, you know, considered contacting MLB or the specific teams to see whether they consider the bullpen catchers to be coaches?? Alex (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Contacting MLB would constitute original research, which is prohibited here at Wikipedia. We also don't need to contact MLB, since I posted a link to an ESPN.com story above that makes it clear that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches. If they WERE considered coaches, they'd count against MLB's seven-coach limit, like all other coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted goes to a "not found" page. Spanneraol (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on it five times. The first two returned a "Not found" error but then the article came up the next three. It looks like ESPN has some odd server issues, but the article is there. Please read it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forbid we actually contact the source that would be most able to answer the question of whether or not bullpen catchers are coaches or not. I think we need to WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case. Alex (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to ignore rules? In other pending AfDs, you claim to have proven that bullpen catchers are, by definition, coaches. Make up your mind. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because clearly that proof is not being accepted by certain members of this community. Bullpen catchers are by definition coaches, and article upon article and source upon source proves it, however that is not enough for said members, so perhaps going to "the source" to serve as arbiter in the dispute may be the best course of action. Alex (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, now "bullpen catchers are by definition coaches"? That's funny. Right above, you suggested contacting MLB for clarification. You're just back to your usual trolling. (By the way, where are all these sources you mentioned? So far, people have posted about five bad examples, while doing nothing to refute the information in the ESPN.com article I posted above.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your ESPN article, which i was finally able to read, says nothing about bullpen catchers and simply talks about the number of coaches allowed in the dugout... obviously they arent in the dugout they are in the bullpen. [5] this source says they are "members of the coaching staff" and actually has a lot of info on these guys that could go towards GNG. I'm getting tired of going round and round on this in any event, as our definitions of what constitutes a coach seem to differ.. My main argument remains that the teams list them as coaches on the website. If they werent coaches they'd be listed under "staff" on the same page instead of under "coaches." And we should go by what the sources say. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More dishonesty It's really dishonest to rely on the "in the dugout" phrasing, which I already discussed above. As you know, bullpen coaches don't sit in the dugout, but they count against the seven-coach rule. You guys want us to believe that bullpen catchers are coaches, but they don't count against the seven-coach limit. It's both dumb and dishonest. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... just because we interpret things differently doesn't mean i'm being dishonest. I know the Dodgers have at least two additional coaches (Steve Yeager and Manny Mota) that they list as coaches even though they dont count as part of that seven coach limit and dont hang out in the dugout... Yeager was in the bullpen also during the playoffs. Plus at the end of the season, they had the AAA manager and coaches with the team as well... I really think we've gone around this as much as is useful.. but i do find it offensive that you always assume dishonesty when we simply have a difference of opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're being dishonest, and you know it. Earlier today, you tried to make a big distinction about "the number of coaches allowed in the dugout," when you know damn well that bullpen coaches _don't_ sit in the dugout and _do_ count against the seven-coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even worth continuing this conversation if your just gonna resort to name calling. A difference of opinion is not being dishonest. Spanneraol (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I haven't called anyone any names. I merely pointed out that you are being dishonest, which is the truth. Your entire "coaches allowed in the dugout" argument is based on dishonesty, since you know damn well that bullpen coaches _don't_ sit in the dugout but _do_ count against MLB's seven-coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word, cause it implies i am intentionally lying or presenting false facts which i am not. Calling someone dishonest is calling someone names... you can argue semantics all you want, but to challenge my integrity is insulting and below the belt. You brought up the coaches in the dugout argument, I presented evidence of teams having additional coaches beyond the so-called seven but you just ignored that. I don't really want to debate this anymore, but I want to reiterate that i was NOT being dishonest about anything. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate troll is he who constantly accuses others of trolling. It's the "whoever smelt it, dealt it" of Internet culture. It's a way to throw people off your scent. Your arguments are very circular, bbny. I don't need clarification as to whether bullpen catchers are coaches, nor does spanneraol, nor does anyone with a basic knowledge of baseball. However, perhaps contacting MLB or MLB teams to get an 'official' answer will help placate certain obstinate parties. Alex (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, calling you a troll is the most accurate thing posted on Wiki last week. Also, "anyone with a basic knowledge of baseball" knows that bullpen catchers are bullpen catchers, NOT coaches. If they were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit and 2) have the word "coach" in their title. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:10, 28 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Butts&oldid=1071149303"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Butts, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.