Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 July 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (baseball)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Much like Jones (third baseman) and that AFD, this article fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him. There are few mentions outside of baseball statistical sites. All coverage from newspapers is routine. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, he does not seem to be discussed in an old 1980s copy of the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract I have lying around. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Especially with their comment of "Let the shitshow begin", I'm pretty sure the nominator is just trying to stir the pot with this nomination.~~ That said, while the subject does pass WP:NBASEBALL having played in the Players' League, the subject only appeared for 3 innings in a single game, which definitely skirts by the guideline. The article's successful FA nomination page may be of value to some participants. Curbon7 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I have removed that comment, that was in poor taste. What I was referring to was nominating something that's a featured article for deletion would cause some heads to explode. That's it. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. since it's a featured article and in pretty good shape there is no reason to delete this.. Nominator is clearly trying to make some sort of point with this nomination. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spanneraol: What is your policy reason how this passes WP:SIGCOV or the GNG? "Featured article" isn't a great reason to keep. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is well written and covers the subject in significant fashion. Passed NSPORTS and GNG. By the way, editing your own comments from your nomination after others have commented on them is bad form. Spanneraol (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I find it difficult to see any argument for passing GNG. There’s no significant coverage - all the references are in passing. And why wouldn’t they be? 3 innings in his sole career game - never heard of before or since!! (And in a league that lasted one season) This has got to be the definition of obscurity. It’s not a bio. It’s an article about an obscure occurrence over a few hours on July 12, 1890 and nothing is known about Lewis except for those few hours. I first noticed this article when it was on the main page and I noticed I couldn’t tell why it was notable, or even what it was really about, from the lead. I opened up a thread on the talk page (Talk:Lewis (baseball)#The Lead) and proposed, as best I could, an amendment to try to rectify this, which I implemented. As can be seen from that thread there’s some bafflement from editors about it’s notability. As an aside, I really don’t know how it got to be an FA, especially with the lead as it originally was. There’s plenty of problems with the article still (eg Background section). It’s an obscure topic written obscurely. DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season per Qwaiiplayer. That seems to be the appropriate home for it. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article per Spanneraol and close the case which is a poor advert for the AFD process. I think a sysop should consider the nominator's conduct. I would have no objection to a fresh nomination providing it is presented objectively, in the normal way, by an editor who respects the process. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. After some deliberation and research, I think this topic is better covered in the article about the sports team rather than the person. While there's plenty of routine coverage about the game where Lewis gave up 20 earned runs, there's nothing about the player himself other than that he was born in Brooklyn and was a bad pitcher. There's also shockingly little non-routine (i.e. after June 1890) coverage of the game outside of blogs and databases. He has a brief mention in Connie Mack and the Early Years of Baseball (2007), but I couldn't verify how much was in The Players League: History, Clubs, Ballplayers and Statistics (2014) or Brooklyn!: An Illustrated History (1996) (I might stop by a different library to check before this AfD closes). I was disappointed to not find any mention whatsoever in The seasons of Buffalo baseball 1857-2020 (2020), even in the section on the 1890 Player's League Bisons. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that WP:NBASEBALL still requires subjects to meet GNG, and I cannot find enough significant, non-routine coverage on this player to justify a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction with your last sentence; it's not that the criteria also needs WP:GNG to be met (as that would make SNGs redundant), it's that SNGs give the presumption of notability, but if a subject barely passes an SNG by playing just a few innings a single game, then we cannot presume that sources exist. Curbon7 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer: I'd be interested to see if you can turn up anything. I can tell you as the person who wrote this article that there is no mention of Lewis as far as I know in Brooklyn!: An Illustrated History (that I believe was used to reference that the park was in Brooklyn). I remember he has a mention in The Great Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Major League Baseball, p. 977, but that is not part of the preview. He is mentioned with a biography in The Players League: History, Clubs, Ballplayers and Statistics too (that included some speculation on why he wasn't named). Those are two biographies. I wish he had more sources covering him, I really do. But it is what it is, I guess. So far no one of the "merges" has really dug deep into the sources except you, will these additional resources change your mind? Therapyisgood (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Addendum: He is also mentioned in The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires on page 53, but that is also by same author as The Great Encyclopedia. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: I'll see if I (or another editor) can look into the sources you suggested. Personally I would like to preserve this article as it's a fascinating piece of baseball trivia, but without significant coverage I can't find a policy justification for it. As others have said, this is a borderline case either way so a few sources can definitely change my mind. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Not only Lewis's "exploits", but also the background section would benefit the season article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a spurious, trollish nomination (removing snide comments about shitshows doesn't take them back). I've discussed before the question of borderline notable articles that have passed quality assessment processes, and I don't consider this article to be one of the edge cases that are inappropriate for inclusion at any status. This article is an unusual example of the borderlands of SNGs -- there are a few others, but not many quite as striking for the sports SNGs specifically. It ultimately clusters with other articles that have managed to find enough about a subject to write on it at decent length in contextually reasonable depth, which by definition are articles on which there is enough to justify inclusion barring extenuating circumstances; the purpose, as I outlined at the Moments AfD, of notability guidelines is to say whether a subject probably has enough on it to justify a quality article, not an entirely orthogonal standard intended to admit and exclude capriciously. Vaticidalprophet 04:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season, lacks independent notability. Fram (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the editors who were put-off by the "shitshow" comment, I believe it can be excused: the same editor who spent hours of time to bring the article to FA status, then nominated it as a FAC & had it pass the review, is the same editor who nominated it for deletion a little over a year later & called it a "shitshow." Seems to be a self-deprecating comment rather than trolling. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the context. It contributed towards my comment, not away from it. Vaticidalprophet 07:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really know why the main writer of an FA would nominate it for deletion, but it would not improve the encyclopedia to redirect this to another article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:POINT and WP:DELAFD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I see only one WP:POINT violation in this discussion, and that is your !vote here. Fram (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am echoing and endorsing comments made by other editors above such as "Nominator is clearly trying to make some sort of point with this nomination. ... spurious, trollish nomination". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol and others. Solid, well-written and well-sourced article, no reason to delete. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge If someone played a third of one game and no one bothered to even record his first name, there's inherently a lack of notability. Zero sources in the article are significant coverage about Lewis in particular, utterly failing GNG and any "presumption" from NSPORT, but are rather routine coverage of the game itself and database entries that make this a WP:REFBOMB. The concept that playing a single game means automatic notability – significant coverage be damned – is misguided and antithetical to encyclopedic standards. While playing in Major League Baseball today may give a presumption of coverage, it's intellectually lazy to equate that level of skill and experience to an amateur who stood in once in 1885, and NBASE is irrelevant. "Well-written" is not a reason to keep, when the content is about the procedings of a single game, not a person. "Well-sourced" is complete bollocks, when those sources are not remotely substantively about this person. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1890 Buffalo Bisons season per WP:Preserve (it's still a FA and the current revision is valuable enough not to be thrown away). His only claim to notability is his bad performance, and that wouldn't be out of place in the merge target instead of here. Much of the article deals with the context and not Lewis himself, and much of what is actually said of the player relies on his database entry as its source. Non-routine significant coverage is thus lacking. Avilich (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lewis is a well-written, informative article of FA standard. The proposed merge target 1890 Buffalo Bisons season has multiple issues, the most serious being that it fails WP:V and is otherwise a collection of statistics that mean little if anything to people who are unfamiliar with baseball. As other editors above, including Pawnkingthree and Andrew, have said, this nomination is a WP:POINT challenged by WP:IAR and WP:DELAFD. And it is now proposed that Lewis is merged into something that should itself be brought to AFD for breach of policy. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 questions for you. Where in policy is it established that the quality or otherwise of the writing in an article is relevant to its existence? While the WP:POINTiness of your tagging of 1890 Buffalo Bisons season is obvious, what is the POINT that the nominator is trying to make by starting this AfD? DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The now-deleted remark by the nominator was obviously a point of some kind that showed a complete lack of due respect for the AFD process and probably intended as an insult to anyone who might disagree with them by wishing to keep the article. Your question about policy is irrelevant. I should have said above that to suggest merger of an FA into an article with multiple issues is a breach of WP:COMMONSENSE, which must always be used in AFD cases. You apparently don't like me tagging the target article – is that because I am wrong about WP:V and WP:NOSTATS or is it just that you don't like it because it harms your merger argument? No Great Shaker (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply struck by the irony of your tagging. Even if I shared your view of that article I wouldn’t have tagged it having just opposed the merge and raised WP:POINT. But that’s just me. I’m still unclear why WP:POINT applied to the ~~nominative~~ nominator. I believe they said the “shitshow” reference was to the hostility they expected for nominating an FA. And in fact that’s what I assumed they meant before they explained it. I genuinely don’t understand why some people seem to think it’s something else. DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No irony intended. It makes sense to check the suitability of the target article when a merger is proposed and this one has issues that needed to be tagged, so I tagged them in the same way as I would for any article I read. All editors have a responsibility, regardless of circumstances like an AFD, to try and improve content. If an article has issues, they must be raised and hopefully resolved. I don't know anything about baseball so I can't resolve those issues personally but at least I have raised awareness.

The "shitshow" reference did indeed anticipate opposition, perhaps even hostility, and I believe it was stated in an attempt to deter opposition as many editors who use AFD will shy away from a case if they expect abuse. As I said in my first comment, the case should have been closed because of the lack of due respect shown for the process with a blatant attempt to deter participation – equally, though, I did add that I would have no objection to a fresh proposal being raised by an editor who does respect the process. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which I get (even if don’t agree with). But it’s not WP:POINT. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another possible merge target is List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, where the subject is already listed. Avilich (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NBASEBALL and enough material for a featured article. Even if not kept, deletion is a ridiculous option given that there is an appropriate redirect or merge target in List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do we have any precedent for deleting an article that had been Today's featured article? Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog: - Yes. Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was merged, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten (2005) is another merge (TFA 2018). PaX was TFA in 2004, was delisted at FAR in 2007, and deleted earlier this year. Tropical Storm Erick was never TFA, but it's not out of the question for FAs to be merged. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBASEBALL is a ridiculous point. Someone who played in Major League Baseball today, or even somewhat more recently than 1890, is a highly covered and paid professional who had the talent to work their way there through college and minor league playing, giving rise to there presumably being significant coverage available. This is some random walk-on in the early very days who threw for three innings, and the "presumption" of notability from NBASE is easily rebutted by the fact that not a single source here is significant coverage about the individual and his first name wasn't even recorded.Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article differs from Jones (third baseman) and others like it in that this player's performance was so poor that the newspapers of the day specifically commented on it beyond the usual reporting of statistics, provided at least some biographical information, and later sources mention that finding out more is likely (and mercifully) impossible. This is coverage beyond statistics provided out of sense of completionism, and is evidence of actual notability. So if anyone were to try to use the likely "keep" result here to try and bestow notability on all single-game-first-name-unknown players they would not succeed because it isn't the same thing at all. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"local boy" with no full name is a laughable amount of biographical information, sheesh. Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Perhaps some dusty archives will be found one day that give us more information on this guy, but as is, this is basically a funny answer to a pub trivia game. A bad record itself isn't innately notable and I don't believe significant coverage is presented as needed in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to the season article. I'd really like to see this kept, but it looks like the subject is largely unknown and isn't discussed in-depth anywhere, really. As an aside: The statement Lewis is not listed as having played in any other major or minor-league games in the article is kinda spurious, as even if he had played in other major or minor league games, the lack of a known identity would prevent the connection from ever being made Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lack of significant coverage of the subject to meet GNG. FA criteria does not consider notability so that is not a reason to !vote "keep". (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though the research seems to have been maximal, this is a clear non-topic for an article per User:Reywas92. After all, the infobox header and categories are misleading as he did not spend a significant/noteworthy part of his life as a baseball player. The only defining characteristic among the categories is "Unidentified people"... However I'm undecided on which merge target. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2021 (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.