Deletion of Mitch Haniger

Comment: Solid !vote for keeping this article based on significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of .  I would like to compliment Muboshgu: that's what ''significant coverage'' is supposed to look like in a GNG discussion.  Several solid feature articles about the subject in mainstream news and sports publications -- not stats sites, not recruiting sites, not draft prospects sites, not random one and two-sentence mentions, not  post-game coverage that mentions the subject's game performance or even quotes the subject, not obscure minor league sports sites.  I would also like to endorse the comments of Cbl62 above: GNG is an ''objective standard'' based on the quality and depth of media coverage, not based on the MLB prospects of the athlete.  If significant coverage is there, the subject is notable for Wikipedia purposes.  If the coverage is marginal, other factors including common sense can (and arguably should) come into play
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: no MLB appearances. Only a minor league player, thousands of them scattered through history and undeserving of an encyclopedic article. 1st round pick which could predict future MLB success but wiki is not . Nothing done yet to become article worthy  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/166.147.104.176|166.147.104.176
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: as a  pass per Muboshgu, Cbl62 , and Dirtlawyer1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)