Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Porterfield

: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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[Ron Porterfield]]=

:{{la|Ron Porterfield}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Ron Porterfield}})

He's an athletic trainer. I would say that athletic trainers are not inherently notable, but would need a special something to become notable, such as Gene Monahan with the coverage he's received. What has this guy done? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:Comment. I certainly would agree that it should not be "automatic" for a trainer, unless I am missing something, and that they should meet GNG. I see he has been mentioned in many articles, but haven't had a chance to review them and consider whether the coverage is sufficient to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this page, which is less than a month old and is marked as a stub. A 10-second Google search shows five current articles in major outlets and several hundred in the archives, including stories in major outlets specifically about Porterfield. This seems like yet another example of someone mistakenly believing WP:BASE/N overrides WP:GNG. At worst, this is a case of sources being missing from the Wiki page rather than being non-existent. (And all of that aside, it's ludicrous to suggest an MLB team's head athletic trainer is less notable and ranks lower in MLB's hierarchy than, e.g., a bullpen catcher, of which there are now dozens on this site.) — NY-13021 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:As I said, I haven't checked the refs to see whether they meet GNG, but yes -- I agree that if he meets GNG that would be sufficient. And that it is sufficient for refs to exist; and not required that they be reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

::Just in case it wasn't clear, my comments above were regarding the AfD itself, not you. From the time-stamps, it looks like we were writing at the same time. Thanks. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:::GNG does trump BASE/N. However, all the coverage that mentions his name seems WP:ROUTINE and doesn't, in my opinion, establish notability for him as an individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Well, that's odd, because I just spent less than two minutes with Google and found [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Sports/Long-journey-leads-St--Michael-s-grad-to-the-World-Series-with- this], [http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/red_sox_rocco_baldelli0227.c78a51e.html this], and [http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/28/tampa_trainer_rates_assist/ this], all of which are far more than "routine." — NY-13021 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::First of all, your snark is not appreciated. Second, only the first article is directly about him. The second and third are in the context of Rocco Baldelli, and is more pertinent to him than Porterfield. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::As WP:GNG plainly states, a person doesn't need to be the topic of an article(s) to derive notability from said article. And, again, the above were simply three examples I found in less than 2 minutes on Google. — NY-13021 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::It also says it has to be non-trivial and in depth, which I don't think this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::My view is that the first is perfectly adequate, the second deals with the subject in some detail and is more than trivial coverage, but relatively weak, and the 3rd is trivial coverage. I am still on the fence, since I would like to see at least one more piece of reasonable significant coverage (at the level of the 2nd article or better) before !voting keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG and neither has anyone else. It would helpful for stubs to at least indicate what a persons WP:IMPACT is, because even if there is more coverage I dont find him notable without further impact. Being a trainer for notable athletes and getting his name occasionally mentioned because of them doesnt appear notable to me, nor does a nice one-time writeup from his hometown paper.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:: With respect, this seems like evidence of how WP:Baseball has gotten out of whack with regards to standards. Somehow, dozens of bullpen catchers have been added to the site and have even passed AfDs, despite the fact they're not actual coaches and often are paid by the game just like batboys and other ballpark game-day staff. But now trainers are being swept aside as non-notable, despite the fact they are considered actual staff members and receive constant media coverage. Simply put, non-notable people don't get quoted multiple times per week in major outlets for years at a time. Being quoted because of subject-matter expertise is much different than "Bob Smith went 1-for-3." The latter is routine; the former is not. — NY-13021 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Sources added I just added info. from four sources to Porterfield's page. Duplicate sourcing from, among others, the New York Times and USA Today was not added but is available. I was also unable to add a feature story from the Orlando Sentinel that is entirely behind a paywall. I didn't have time to look at more than about 20 of the more than 300 hits in the Google News Archive, so there's likely more info. to be mined. I don't see any way Porterfield doesn't pass GNG, but that seems increasingly to be in the eye of the beholder in these baseball AfDs. — NY-13021 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

::Appreciate the effort, but still doesnt seem notable. I dont think that society (right or wrong) finds athletic trainers inherently notable. As the nominator wrote, it would take a Gene Monahan-type that serves decades and gets a day named after him, who has some [http://www.google.com/search?q=Gene+Monahan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Gene+Monahan&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b78d01a347f58a89&biw=1280&bih=830 non-trivial mentions in books] to probably get in. If it was up to me, Monahan wouldnt be in, but I can see where he gets support based on seniority and being on Yankees.—Bagumba (talk)

::: Great, another Wiki editor taking it upon himself to create his own rules and standards. "Inherently notable" is the standard imposed by WP:BASE/N, but BASE/N doesn't trump GNG, which is satisfied for Porterfield due to his coverage in the Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Tribune, etc. I feel like a broken record, but non-notable people simply aren't quoted on a weekly basis in major news outlets for years and years at a time. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::: Adding to my last comment, I'm getting a little frustrated with all of the AfD and PROD activity lately and it's probably coming through in the tone of my comments. I'm not trying to beat anyone up; I just hate wasting time on things like this when there are better ways for all of us to use our time. I just don't see how an ex-minor leaguer like Zach Daeges (a pending AfD) or bullpen catchers can be said to "clearly pass GNG," while an actual longtime member of an MLB staff, like Porterfield, requires a huge debate like this, even after sources were added. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::::I can explain my thinking further. He's not an athlete per se, so I look at WP:BIO. It says "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I'm not expecting the history book now, but I ask myself what is the likelihood he will be included. For an athletic trainer with his accomplishments to-date, I dont see it based on what I read about him in current sources. Its just a reflection of society that "lesser" people might get more attention. As much as all of us want to make this purely objective based on X sources with Y number of lines written being the threshold of inclusion, notability is subjective to a degree. WP:GNG itself says its guidelines are a "presumption" and not a "guarantee" of inclusion. I dont see his WP:IMPACT, but I am just one !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::I appreciate your comments and it seems like a good-faith position, but I'd also argue that it's a somewhat erroneous or at least minority one. You seem to give way too much weight to the idea that someone can pass GNG but still not be worthy of a Wiki page. Let's face it, if "history books" are the new standard, then 90% of the pages on Wiki should be deleted. How many non-leadership Congressman are mentioned in an average history book? Maybe five. And yet Wiki probably has a page for every Congressman in U.S. history. Now, I'm not putting an MLB trainer in the same notability category as a Congressman. I'm just saying that I don't see much need to go beyond GNG. I don't go out of my way looking for reasons to include people; I just make sure they pass GNG and/or BASE/N. But you seem to look for reasons to exclude people even when they otherwise pass GNG, which, while perhaps done in good faith, seems to be a minority position/standard here. Again, as I've said elsewhere, the inconsistent standards are somewhat maddening. Third-string catchers in the Mexican League are deemed notable because the Mexican League is the top-level league in Mexico, but then people fight to get MLB executives and trainers deleted (while keeping bullpen catchers, who usually don't come close to passing GNG or BASE/N). — NY-13021 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep This artical could easily be salvaged, It surpasses the basic requirement for a stub artical, and has several sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep He gets coverage for many things, not just one or two players. Orlando Sentinel has an article which gives him significant coverage. [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-07-14/news/8907143306_1_team-trainer-porterfield-trainers-who-work Trainer's Job Involves More Than Taping Ankles]. That combined with what else I've read about in the various Google news results, convince me he is notable. Dream Focus 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Topic is congruent with WP:GNG{{mdash}} [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Sports/Long-journey-leads-St--Michael-s-grad-to-the-World-Series-with-], [http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/28/tampa_trainer_rates_assist/], [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-07-14/news/8907143306_1_team-trainer-porterfield-trainers-who-work]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

: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.