Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bud Chamberlain

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. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bud Chamberlain

Bud Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

College athlete, no pro career, no records set, no substantial discussion of him in any independent reference I found on Gnews, or Gbooks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. News sources from the late 1930s are not easily retrieved, but sufficient sources exist to demonstrate his notability. He was the Big Ten Conference batting champion in 1942 before serving five years in the U.S. Navy during WWII. Baseball has been a sport at the University of Michigan since the 1860s, and in 150 years of baseball at that institution, Chamberlain is one of only 15 individuals, along with the likes of Jim Abbott, Steve Boros, Barry Larkin, Branch Rickey, and George Sisler, who have been inducted into the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor for their contributions as a baseball player. Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak keep On balance makes the encyclopedia more complete. May weakly pass the notability bar based on what's in the article. The state award noted in his obituary mentions contributions to the state and nation. Are there any beyond service in Navy and as collegiate athlete? That might push it over the bar more fully. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability standard for athletes whose career does net extend beyond college (WP:NCOLLATH) is very short, so I will just paste it here for all to consider:
    • College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
      1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
      2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
      3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
  • Note that being inducted into his school's hall of fame is not on that list, nor is a conference individual championship. Serving his country is a great and honorable thing, but it certainly does not make him notable. Every fit man his age served his country. This is WWII era we are talking about. And since when does the difficulty in locating sources factor in to a notability decision? The sources have to exist to show notability or he isn't notable. If they are hard to find is somehow an argument, then anyone can claim they are notable with difficult to locate sources. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't agree with the slippery slope argument, Gtw. Nobody is saying that every WWII vet is notable. Also, difficulty in locating news sources has long been a factor in assessing notability of persons from the pre- and post-Internet era. In this case, being one of 15 baseball players to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of an institution with as long of a sporting history as U-M is extraordinary and notable. News coverage of recent inductees is abundant and easily retrieved. Not as easy for someone from the 1930s. Enough to show notability IMO as is, and likely to be a lot more if we could more readily access 1930s news coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Big Ten batting champion, school's hall of fame, and state recognition. I think it's probably enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep - per Candleabracadabra and Cbl62; at worst based an WP:IAR argument, given that WP:NCOLLATH can't necessarily encompass every possible combination of accomplishments (including non-athletic ones) that may in aggregate attain an adequate level of notability, particularly for a non-BLP. And there has certainly been more coverage of him than currently in the article, for example and . Given the reliably sourced accomplishments for this person and the relative difficulty in finding 65 year old sources, I am inclinded to believe he is adequately notable to pass WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per argument outlined above by Candleabracadabra. Notable Individual. Finnegas (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2013 (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.