Deletion of Josh Papelbon

Comment: Average minor league player.  Only having references because he is John's brother does not make him notable, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: There are plenty of sources out there. Mostly because he is Jonathan's brother, but still, they are out there. Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 28 years old and didn't even make it in ''double''-A?  Sorry, not remotely notable.  Yes, I'm sure we could fill Wikipedia up - were  repealed - with articles based around puff pieces of Joanne The Mechanic, sister of the senator, but I don't consider the GNG satisfied when no one in creation would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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: The idea behind  is being misconstrued. It is not valid to say just because it he is a brother of someone notable, he should be kept. But if interdependent reliable sources look at the subject and write about it because his brother is a famous major leaguer, then they have the right. That doesn't violate . It's unavoidable the sources are going to mention his brother. Take for example these: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060608&content_id=1495914&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/862276181.html?dids=862276181:862276181&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+03,+2005&author=Steve+Buckley&pub=Boston+Herald&desc=Twin+bill;+The+indentical+little+brothers+of+Red+Sox+prospect+Jonathan+Papelbon,+bonded+in+triumph+and+near-tragedy,+prompt+NECBL+followers+to+do+a+double-take&pqatl=google, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/1060976461.html?dids=1060976461:1060976461&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+15,+2006&author=LENNY+MEGLIOLA+(METROWEST+DAILY+NEWS)&pub=Boston+Herald&desc=COLLEGE+BASEBALL;+A+second+Papelbon+enters+minor+league+mix&pqatl=google, http://bostonist.com/2006/06/08/the_brothers_papelbon.php. With countless more it's obvious it meets GNG. But all anyone can care about is what level they made it to or how he's "washed up" or how minor leaguers aren't notable. I have a question, why is that? Why if a subject obviously meets GNG should we delete it? It makes no sense. Take for example Ollie Carnegie, a career minor leaguer. And look at the sources on the article. Being a minor league is not directly related to meeting the general notability guidelines (and in reverse
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Below-average minor-league player, has already washed out of the Red Sox organization: does not meet . If there's something notable there, '''merge''' it with Jonathan Papelbon per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:INHERITED)