Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade (3rd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heberto Andrade (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)

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Bullpen catchers are not coaches covered by WP:BASE/N per WP:BASEBALL consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade (2nd nomination) both consist of a majority vote of which is keep. I'm well aware that this does not mean an article should stick around. I'm aware of the many times that a majority vote was still turned down. But I include this because many users in the past have made some pretty good arguments. Those nominating this article for deletion, or even keep, should at least take a look at the past discussions in the past nominations' entries and read the points that were made. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well this is disappointing. Though I can't argue with the past nominations. Andrade does seem to be one of the least notable people of the Pirates staff. Nonetheless, I'd like to ask why Euclides Rojas meets the requirements, and why Andrade doesn't, compared to Rojas. In other words, could it be explained what Rojas has that Andrade doesn't? They practically have the same achievements and they're both bullpen pitchers for the Pirates. I know Mubosh thinks bullpen pitchers aren't notable, but I'd just like to question what Euclides has that Andrade does not. Hopefully this'll better my understanding of who needs an article and who doesn't, regarding my future article creations. A little help from the admins'd be appreciated. 👌 Last time I compared Wikipedia pages, I was scorned by an admin for whatever reason. He claimed he had no obligation to delve into the research, and I suppose did not feel like reading the article I linked and figuring it out. I don't think it takes that much work though... so I don't know how other admins would feel about helping me out here. Can someone list what Rojas has, to deserve an article, that Andrade lacks? How is Rojas more notable according to Wikipedia's criteria? Regards. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be that Rojas hasn't been nominated for deletion yet (by nominating one article for deletion, no one is saying that a different article actually meets WP notability requirements). However, just at a glance, I see some differences. Rojas may have a case for notability via WP:NBASE for his participation as a star player with the Cuban national team, or he may meet WP:GNG because there are full-length articles (one I see is in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) that discuss Rojas, his career and his status as one of the early players to defect from Cuba. Note that neither subject is a "bullpen pitcher" - Rojas is a bullpen coach and Andrade is a bullpen catcher, a non-playing and essentially non-coaching role in which the subjects don't usually get significant coverage in reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderHovanec: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Bullpen coaches are covered by BASE/N because the presumption is there are sources, and a quick Google search for Rojas does turn up sources, while one for Andrade does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page was already deleted once. Nothing new added. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked at the other two discussions. The 2nd discussion was a clear cut delete and the 1st had some keep votes which basically amounted to “he’s listed on the ‘Coaches’ page on the website” and “I bet he offers good advice”. The problem is that even if we overlooked WP:BASE/N, he didn’t pass WP:GNG and there just not enough out there to flesh out an article. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am glad we are finnally moving away from some of our past overly broad inclusion criteria. Bullpen catchers are just not notable. If he does not pass the baseball notability guidelines and he is only know for baseball, we delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2017 (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.