Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Radler

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Radler

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Though, by looking at his statistics, he was really quite an excellent pitcher (he won over 150 games with an ERA under 3), he did really reach any milestones (like 200 wins). As a manager, sure he won two league championships and led his teams to the league finals four years in a row, but the teams he managed were all D-level (lower minors). In addition, there are some mentions of him on the Google News Archive, but the articles look like they might be WP:ROUTINE (but if you find anything of note, let me know). I must admit, I am a bit on the fence with this one--so I thought I'd let you decide. Alex (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, specifically lack significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not a supporter of creating an article on a minor league player/coach just because a stat site like Baseball-Reference.com has stats that can be used to synthesize prose to create an article. This is routine coverage on B-R.com's part. There should be non-routine coverage in other reliable sources (not stat databases) as well. —Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:58, 12 April 2011 (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.