Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Papelbon
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
— User:Halvorsen, 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:INHERIT||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)