Twink Twining: fails general notability guideline .  preliminary search only turns up databases and mentions of his name.  ltb d l ( talk ) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) (edited 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and Pennsylvania .  ltb d l ( talk ) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Seems to be covered here [27] , but paywalled.  I can't find anything beyond trivial mentions of this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's got a somewhat in-depth obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer (arguably SIGCOV) - and then there's a bunch of brief newspaper pieces from various places as well under the names of "Doc Twining" "Earle Twining" and "Howard E. Twining"; according to Bullpen , he is covered in the book Native Sons: Philadelphia Baseball Players Who Made the Major Leagues ; it also mentions a newspaper quote stating that he was a "well-known athlete" who captain the basketball team at Swarthmore, managed the football team and was a star pitcher for the baseball team who led victories over major schools such as Michigan and Penn. there's arguably enough for a decent biography / pass of WP:NBASIC in my opinion considering the obit which is at least one piece of sigcov for this 1910s-era MLB player... @ Oaktree b : in case you're interested in seeing the uncovered source.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no evidence the obit is independent.  The fact that it lists the location and time of the funeral suggests it is not.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obits are by nature independent, as the deceased don't tend to write much.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I remember correctly, the Inquirer had on their obits page a section for family death notices and then one for staff written obits for notable people (which usually had more text about their lives); Twining's had much more text compared to many of the other death notices : I'd say there's a good chance its independent.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if it was an editorial obituary, those are still not written independently of relatives, who have to send all the biographical details themselves, and they also rely on the family to nominate the decedent for consideration.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't most journalists have to rely on closely-related people to help cover the events / develop the articles?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a massive difference between a journalist collecting research on a topic by speaking to people close to an event, and a family member soliciting the newspaper asking it to run a profile on someone and providing all of the details they want to be included.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you know that Twining's family and the Inquirer did all this how...?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the newspaper...?  You mentioned they had staff-written obits.  These are their instructions for submitting a candidate for an editorial obit.  Clearly not independent.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They (the Inquirer ) still have to judge whether the submitted candidate was a notable person and the obits are still written by the journalists; I would dispute that that is "clearly not independent".  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The act of "judging" whether someone was (locally) "important enough" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant or independent.  The obits are written with the assistance of relatives , which does not count as independent commentary.  Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And almost all good sports reporting includes what you'd call "assistance" from closely-related people; the fact that its written by the independent staff journalists versus the people closely-related to said events is what makes the sources independent.  As for The act of "judging" whether someone was (locally) "important enough" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant ...   Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years?  – you're right, we do not consider whether a newspaper considered someone locally important as to whether the coverage is significant, we take whether the coverage is significant ; and in this case, it is.  Discounting significant coverage on an MLB player under the guise of "then we'd have articles on florists!" is a fallacious WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not ! voting one way or the other, but if ! kept, then:  1) re-direct (instead of delete) to List of Major League Baseball players (Ti–Tz) , 2) retain Category:Cincinnati Reds players on the re-direct page so the player is not deleted from the category record, per WP:RCAT .   Somewhere down the line it might be appropriate to have List of Major League Baseball players who played in one game .   Rgrds.  -- Bison X ( talk ) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Notability not derived from playing a single game.  Local newspaper obituary was not independent and recognized him more for career as prominent local doctor than as one-time athlete.  Reywas92 Talk 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think an article on an MLB player whose full name was known has ever been deleted?  Regardless of the "consensus" at WP:NSPORTS2022 , MLB players have been considered notable for decades on Wikipedia.  Every MLB player ever has had an article since probably 2009 or 2010 I think.  Personally, I'm never going to vote to delete an MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL player but I don't technically have a guideline based reason for keeping right now (since  NBASEBALL got nuked and hasn't been replaced with anything)...so I'll just leave this comment...  It feels like there's been an anti-sports bias here in recent years.  I guess everyone just plays video games nowadays.  If you want stuff to work on deleting, Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability is littered with ads.  Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, there was one MLB player with name known who was deleted - that would be Rit Harrison of 1875 in a kind of questionable close.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Playing for the New Haven Elm Citys of 1875 is a lot different than the World Series era Cincinnati Reds .  (though I wouldn't have voted delete there either).  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After expansion by BeanieFan11.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Will be expanding the article soon to show a pass of WP:NBASIC ...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ... played in major league baseball for the Reds.  I agree with WikiOriginal about the status of such ball players and the sources mentioned by others seem legitimate to me.  Spanneraol ( talk ) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - There are some passing mentions I found on Newspapers.com, and apparently he was the first MLB player from Swarthmore College , so maybe there's more out there, but right now I'm not seeing notability.  I would suggest redirecting to 1916 Cincinnati Reds season rather than the List of MLB players mentioned above, but either target would work.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm impressed by the research and expansion; my first choice is now keep .  Hatman31 ( talk ) 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have just performed an extensive expansion of the article to over 600 words and 14,000 bytes; this expansion clearly shows a pass of WP:NBASIC , which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ; and additionally, we are not restricted by WP:SPORTCRIT as we have the piece of significant coverage from The Philadelphia Inquirer , in addition to many shorter pieces that add up to build a big picture of this person's life (many of them mention that he was a very prominent figure in the area, so its probably safe to assume this MLB player has further offline sources as well - plus he's on SABR's list for wanted bios , so once someone does that it will be more sigcov).  @ Ltbdl , Oaktree b , Hatman31 , Bison X ,  and WikiOriginal-9 : Does this major expansion persuade any of you to suggest keeping this extensive and well-sourced MLB biography?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's much better now with the information added.  If it was up to me, we'd keep all these ball player articles, cause it's baseball!  Anyway, I think it's fine as it stands now, more than a one or two line notation.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I added some snazzy photos from the 1916 yearbook.  Now it's a full article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : President of the Dermatological Society and his activities as a doctor also help notability, pretty minor career as a baseball player.  Seems to have a decent record as a coach in college.  We've at least met BASIC now.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] President of the Philadelphia Dermatological Society.  There are hundreds of regional medical specialty societies in this country – that does not contribute to notability, especially when it's only mentioned in the obit and not independent sources.  Lots of orgs rotate presidents regularly too, maybe not a long-term or significant position.  Reywas92 Talk 16:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nomination withdrawn thanks to WP:HEY .  can't close right now due to other people voting delete and redirect ltb d l ( talk ) 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above: Appreciate the work people have put into this, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be enough GNG level coverage.  Redirect as a ATD.  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do you realize that GNG is not the only route to notability ...?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, but here that does not apply.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm?  NBASIC is the notability criterion for people (of which is concerned here), whereas GNG is a broader criterion for any subject not passing a particular sub-criterion; may I ask why you say that the notability criterion for people does not apply and thus we should get rid of this well-sourced extensive MLB biography?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:03, 17 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep