Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Baseball. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Baseball|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Baseball. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Many of the baseball-related deletion discussions center on questions of notability. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability (WP:BASE/N) may be helpful.


Baseball

[edit]

Articles for deletion

[edit]

Rit Harrison

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rit Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like WP:1E. Most mentions I've seen are trivial/statistics. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders

[edit]
Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is almost exclusively sourced to official Longhorns Baseball materials, principally its 2023 fact book There is no evidence that independent, secondary sources discuss Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders as a defined group; as a result, this subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss

[edit]
2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. One of the record 121 (so far) losses, nothing about the record-breaking loss itself has lasting notability. The game itself was routine and WP:ROTM. Many comments such as "represented a crucial point" in the rivalry and the announcer calls are WP:FANCRUFT. What needs to be covered of the 121-loss (or more) season can be covered at 2024 Chicago White Sox season – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, what we have here is one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century, the breaking of a record only surpassed by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (you should have seen them play!). When this game went into the record books it literally went into the record books. The 2024 White Sox season is historic for, yes, its 121 losses. This was the 121st, and that's what makes it notable and, despite the contents of two essays while actually meeting the only policy mentioned in the nom ("A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved"), well deserving of a stand-alone article.. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century Hardly. This isn't going to be analyzed in the future like, say, Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. It was one loss out of 121 (or 122). History never analyzed the 1962 Mets' record breaking loss (whatever number that was), just the 1962 New York Mets season as a whole, as they will with the 2024 White Sox. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:NSPORTSEVENT guideline also mentions that

    ... news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence ...

    —Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely, so how are we supposed to know one way or the other when this event hasn't even had the requisite time to accumulate such coverage? That's why the "wait" !votes presented by myself and Esolo5002 seem the most sensible. What's the big rush? Any assertion of notability or lack thereof is mere speculation at this point. Left guide (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A historic loss that officially clinched the White Sox as the worst team in MLB history. In addition, the Tigers also ended their ten year playoff drought with this win following a historic resurgence not seen since the 1973 Mets, so between the two events, there is plenty of coverage. This game will be talked about for a long time. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just because a record is set doesn't make the game noteworthy. The game itself is a nothingburger, and the bulk of the article is cruft. The "Aftermath" section, mere days after the event, is ridiculous, and includes an entire passage about the Tigers clinching a playoff berth, with zero mention of the White Sox at all. The event can be summarized in a single paragraph at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The game itself is not notable... the article spends as much time talking about the Tigers clinching a playoff spot as it does the White Sox setting a record. There was no article on the Cleveland Spiders setting the previous record. Nothing about the game was "historical". The White Sox set a season record for losses, not a game record.. making the season itself notable for that and the 2024 Chicago White Sox season article is the place for information about this record. Spanneraol (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The game was internationally covered by major news sources. Anything but mundane. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every MLB game is covered by major news sources. Even spring training games. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Internationally? Ah, no. This one was. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every game that Shohei Ohtani plays gets more international coverage than this game did. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (oppose merge/redirect) per WP:NOPAGE. A game receiving a bit more coverage than a normal late-season baseball game does not mean it needs its own article. This game can be summarized in a few sentences at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. I oppose a redirect due to this particular title being an unlikely search term. The fact that this game also ended the Tigers’ nine-year postseason drought is not relevant. There have been postseason droughts of significantly longer duration across the four major American sports, and those clinching games do not have articles, or receive any WP:LASTING coverage (likewise the specific game in which the 1962 Mets set the record did not receive lasting coverage). Frank Anchor 14:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the game itself isn't what's important. The game as a part of a larger whole, the season, is what's important. And that already has an article. All discussion of this game should be merged into that article as that is the important and notable topic. --TorsodogTalk 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: records are broken every single year but we don't have articles for every game in which one happens to be broken. It would be ridiculous to have an article for Aaron Judge's 62nd home run, or Oakland Athletics' 20th consecutive win; those records are the result of season-long play and one particular game out of 162 isn't somehow notable because the record was broken on that night. I cannot articulate strongly enough how much this article is not needed and how the content should be merged to the season article instead. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Michigan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe we have a similar page named "1962 New York Mets' 120th loss". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, from what I'm seeing so far there's almost no chance this survives as an article, so let's merge this into the main season article so the history is preserved. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 19:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only one rebutted my point about the Tigers. And to Frank, while it’s not a historic drought, it is abnormal for this timeframe, plus, as I said, the comeback on the Tigers season is historic.69.118.230.235 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tigers’ nine year drought is not abnormal for this time frame, considering the Angels have an active drought now at ten years, and the Mariners recently ended a drought of over twenty years. Frank Anchor 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have articles for every game where a team clinched a playoff berth. The Tigers also have a season article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is (supposedly) about the White Sox' record loss, not the Tigers' playoff clinch. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy about the game itself. Rift (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, even though the number of editors asking for deletion grows by the hour, the article meets GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, and now all that can be done is wait for a few weeks to see if the game is still notable and discussed. As an update, the White Sox won their last two games to finish at 41-121, so the 121st game is the record holder for maybe the next 62 years (unless the Sox beat it in 2025). Another notability of the game is that the Sox lost this 121st in their 160th game of the season, the number of games played by the 1962 New York Mets, who lost 120, thus setting the modern day single-season loss record in the same amount of games played by the former record-holding team. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You stand in the minority in saying that it meets notability, as the majority have detailed why this ROTM loss does not meet GNG or NSPORTSEVENT. That the White Sox won their last two games has no bearing on this discussion one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it was the last loss of the record-breaking season should count in favor of keeping the page. It's early yet, so awhile to go for other editors to catch onto its notability and to read WP:NSPORTSEVENT to ascertain if this game meets its exception standards. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This game has no meaning without the other 120 losses that preceded it. That's why it's not notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the White Sox had lost a 122nd, it would have had no bearing on this AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean wait. The long-term notability of this "record" is suspect. But in the near term, there has been lots of coverage. Per WP:RAPID, let's wait until this story is a little less fresh. Then we can really assess whether there is secondary sources to support this article. That being said, I'm not entirely oppossed to a merge to 2024 Chicago White Sox season, that at least preserves the history of this page. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree with a redirect and merge, even if it turns out that it's not worthy of keeping the page history is nice to have and redirects are harmless! Especially if there's more commentary on this next year and future years. I created a redirect of the Double doink football play never expecting it to become anything but when another double doink happened it was suddenly notable enough to expand to an article! Though the article didn't use my capitalization, someone started a better one with Doink not doink. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: This event occurred a mere three days ago so it's impossible to determine whether there will be enough secondary coverage, because right now there is none; it's all essentially primary sources. As per WP:PRIMARY:

    For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

    This AfD is best being relisted a few times, so we can wait and see if there's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over the next few weeks (which the event hasn't even had a chance to accumulate yet), and make a better judgment call then. Left guide (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree more. In the unlikely event SIGCOV specifically related to this game comes out in the next several weeks, then the article can be refunded. Historically, SIGCOV for single games either comes out almost immediately or not at all. Frank Anchor 10:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What's offered in this article's references and external links section is a collection of publications from MLB (primary non-independent source) and baseball-reference.com (a stats database), neither of which count towards notability. Furthermore, most of them don't actually discuss this list topic but are instead being used in a WP:SYNTH manner. These two sources publish some variant of the list, but lack the requisite secondary SIGCOV needed to establish notability. An extensive WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help. I discovered this source from Baseball Almanac; it has a table of random stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with a brief mention of three random unrelated factoids, but no meaningful discussion about this list topic specifically. bb_catchers.tripod.com contains two sentences discussing this list, but the site has no apparent editorial or authorial information, so it's likely WP:SPS. This source contains a footnote with a single sentence (which means it falls short of SIGCOV) mentioning only the first-place entry (which means it fails NLIST). At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. In light of the aforementioned article review and search for sources, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Reywas92's proposal at related AfDs. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP lists of career leaders for batting, pitching and baserunning categories (such as hits, wins and stolen bases) are older, generally dating to between 2004 and 2007; the lists of fielding leaders are more recent, generally from around 2019, but are no less valid. Also, the batting, pitching and baserunning lists currently include less information, and are arguably more redundant of other sources; the individual subdivisions by league which have been added to the fielding lists are useful (and factual), as are the notes on the holders of various records over the years. Anyone looking for this info could, I suppose, wade through the data on other sites to find it themselves, but why make that necessary? There used to be annual publications which included the current league records, but I'm not sure any are still being printed, so that info isn't even easy to find anymore; I can't find career single-league records on Baseball-Reference, let alone single-league leaders, so I'm not sure where they'd be available. I don't think there's a WP:SYNTH issue, because no conclusions or inferences are being drawn -it's all simply factual material. MisfitToys (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MisfitToys: None of that proves compliance with WP:NLIST, nor does it rebut the thorough source analysis set forth in the nomination, and I also see multiple arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Can you please justify your keep !vote by providing independent secondary reliable sources that directly discuss this list topic as a group to show notability? Left guide (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references largely consist of primary/non-independent sources and stats databases, but more importantly, they also all fail verification or only cover off-topic matters; none actually discuss this record or list. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded dismal results; the best-quality source I could find was this Guinness World record page, but the WP:RSP entry for Guinness World Records says There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Furthermore, it briefly mentions the first-place entry but fails to discuss a group or set of list entries together as required by WP:NLIST. Page 329 of this book offers a sentence discussing the top four entries of this list but since it's published by AuthorHouse, it's an WP:SPS. With all that said, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What EXISTING article do you suggest this article be Merged to? If one doesn't exist, this article will likely be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BX,
First it's too late to make this a bundled nomination. This has to happen at the beginning of an AFD discussion, not midway through. Second, a number of these articles are already being discussed in AFD discussions. They should appear as pink links. You can voice your opinions at these discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have commented at all that were nom'd. Don't have the pink thing installed tho. That's why I quasi-voted as a no-go for me. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I didn't even know how many were involved. I would, if Left Guide were okay with it, withdrawing our respective noms to create one mega bundle. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the best way forward IMO. TYVM. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 and BX: As Liz (an experienced regular AfD admin) says above, we're past the point of no return in withdrawing or bundling these even if we wanted to, since there are extant non-keep !votes from other community members in basically all of these. I actually plan to nominate the remaining "double plays by position" articles sometime soon, but it takes precious time to do a thorough good-faith WP:BEFORE search for each individual article to see if there's anything encyclopedically salvageable, and other commitments both on Wikipedia and in real life means the research can't always be easily done all at once. In any case, each nomination should be treated on its own merits. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Deletion and Merge. However, the merge target article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders which is also up for an AFD discussion. So, this discussion can't close as a possible Merge until the fate of that article is determined. You might consider participating in that discussion, too, so it can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Dear me. Let's see.
WP:SALAT has nothing to do with this situation. Besides some housekeeping notes, it gives three annotated examples of the types of lists to avoid:
  • "list of brand names" (Way too broad, could have millions of entries)
  • "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" (Of no interest to anyone)
  • "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" (Does not contribute to the state of human knowledge)
This list is not remotely like any of those, not even close.
Another editor wrote "I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable", but then why would you want to want to be in this discussion if you don't know that? (Narrator: they are.)
WP:NLIST, c'mon. If you think that this dataset has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" very many times, you must not read much in depth about baseball, in which case why are you trying to erase the work of editors who apparently have. It's late, and I shouldn't have to go get refs to prove the sky is blue.
And in addition to that, the nomination might be malformed. Not sure. I'll leave that that to an admin to decide. I got here from the center fielder article and that is confusing and it took me a bit to figure out what was going on -- apparently it was made into a group nom midstream, which is not a deal-killer but tricky, and not made clear enough, all the articles in the class are supposed to right up top, and that might be important enough that we want to start over. And if so well we have a wikiproject on baseball and maybe there would be the place to start with a discussion on the general question of "should we have these types of articles generally"? We're not going to be deleting or merging the shortstops DP article (if we are, just shoot me), so why are we singling out outfielders in particular, etc etc etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of that argument can be summarized with WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and proof by assertion. Also, the examples provided in WP:SALAT are just that, examples, it's not meant to be exhaustive; the concept or principle is what matters. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Left Guide, I'd like to see the sources. Conyo14 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the nominator said that Baseball Reference is a source (which it is, altho you might have to have a subscription). Extremely reliable source. We don't need multiple sources I believe.
I don't know what so say about WP:SALAT thing. It doesn't say or imply "You should avoid these sorts of things, but... um there are lots of other things you should avoid but we aren't gonna say, wink wink, use your imagination". You could invoke SALAT against literally any list if you liked.
I'd prefer not to be SHOUTED AT thanks. And no I'm not going to stop washing my cat and look up sources for you when WP:BEFORE has not been done into the corpus of books, many available thru the Internet Library and library loan, which is a lot of work but for a group of articles of this calibre would be called for. Since you are taking it upon yourselves to participate here, you ought to know that the rubric for keeping is not "is the article ref'd" but "can the article be reffed with reasonable effort".
"Other stuff exists" only applies if that other stuff should also not exist. Right? Am I wrong there? As to proof by assertion:

Proof by assertion [is when] a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers

How dare you. This would be insulting if it wasn't so obviously just throwing words so it looks like you have an actual argument. Way to turn this into a playground fight. I wrote one gosh-darn post, cogent enough and not terribly prolix I don't think.
Look. It's apparent that you guys are looking for an excuse to delete these perfectly good articles, to the point where it's a problem. If you are making a regular practice of this it's a big problem. You obviously didn't read my post with the position "Hmmm let's see what this guy has to say and maybe consider it" but rather "I'm not changing my mind, I am here to eradicate this work, period, for reasons of my own, so I'll only read it to look for ammo to achieve that end." Sheesh.
I also would like to remind the closer that it's not a vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Baseball Reference is a source for this list, but secondary sources are required to establish notability. WP:SECONDARY:

A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Can you indicate where in that source there is thought, reflection, analysis, evaluation, or interpretation? Left guide (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or alternatively, if you are unable to identify secondary coverage in Baseball Reference, can you please provide other sources which show secondary coverage of this list topic? Left guide (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search of sources, but found nothing on this subject nor its sisters in the bundling. Baseball reference is a good source, but it's also the only source to which I say it's not enough. Also, calm down. I just want to see the sources you're talking about and then analyze them. If you did a WP:BEFORE, which should be done by voters too, then please provide. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for being polite and making cogent points, good improvement.
Anyway, so here's the rub, and it turns out we're just having a terminology mismatch. Not anybody'ss fault really. Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. Annnnd... another term -- more modern and informal-- is "baserunner kills". This is pointed out in the lede, bolded, but way down. I can see where one wouldn't know to search on that, particularly if they don't know the subject.
So, searching on "baserunner kills" gets me this article at something called Batter's Box. Long article specifically on the topic, starts off:

BaseRunner Kills -- It's one of my favourite plays in baseball. And it's always a big play. When an outfielder throws out someone, at a minimum he's turning an opposition base runner into an out. He's not retiring a hitter, he's removing someone who's already reached base and is therefore a threat to score. When an outfielder throws out a runner at home plate, it's the next best thing to actually taking a run off the scoreboard...

And it goes on and on, paragraph after paragraph, long article, lots of info. Has a table with outfield kills as a rate stat -- kills per 1,000 innings. Much more informative IMO. Hopefully someone will come along and add that table after the existing one, also he points out that the list should be split into pre- and post-1920. And the article renamed. These're content issues tho.
I stopped there cos that's plenty.
I can see where searching on "outfield double plays" is not going to throw too many results. I searched on "outfield assists" and did get, not a lot, but enough to hang an article on, especially considering we've got the Batter's Box article.
I found in the The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, here,

Outfield assists, like catcher's assists, are inversely related to team performance. A bad team will have more outfield assists than a good team.

More than a passing mention anyway. Used in computing win shares I think.
This book has

While infielders record hundreds of assists per season, 10 is an excellent total for an outfielder. Tris Speaker, a legendary center fielder... holds both the single season (35) and career record (449)

There're some more, small, but if you pile them up they add up.
So hopefully terminology problem cleared up and Bob's your uncle?
So, but, couple things, it occurs to me, is this even a list article? It's got several paragraphs of text and then the list after. Name of the article doesn't matter, it could be renamed. The text isn't ref'd, but its all true and the writer didn't make it up, so there're sources out there. Tag that part of the article for lack of refs, that'd be fine.
As to original research... a lot of our lists are original research, and it's just not a problem. It doesn't detract from the Wikipedia. Don't worry about it. In fact the list rules tell you how to make a list. I made List of statues of Queen Victoria and I had to find and add them in one by one -- there's no existing list (that I could find). Is it bad article? Would it be better to 404 on readers searching for a list of statues on Queen Victoria? Of course not. What was I supposed to do instead of making that good article? Browse Reddit? How would that be adding to the sum of organized human knowledge? I wouldn't get overly attached to rules that don't help what we are trying to do here. Seriously. It's not a game where we try to win by finding some rule that lets us destroy OK articles. (Well I mean it is, but it shouldn't be).
(N.B. I added the above later than the following comment in order to keep the thread together.) Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing those. Unfortunately, it appears those sources discuss assists and not double plays (for Wikipedia's purposes they're distinctive terms since we have distinctive sets of articles for them), so I'm afraid you're at the wrong set of articles with those sources. However, your efforts are not wasted since those sources can be used to help establish notability at articles like List of Major League Baseball career assists as an outfielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a left fielder leaders. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. No, that's patently false and you know that based on how much you know about baseball; double plays and assists are fundamentally different concepts. That's an attempt to sneakily twist and gerrymander what the sources say in an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH manner when sources that directly discuss this topic don't exist. Left guide (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC) struck some bits that may be too harsh Left guide (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna disparage your research, but it appears that double plays and assists are different things according to the MLB. [4], [5]
But I think you may be somewhat on the right track? Conyo14 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough that there is no need for a second article. The double play totals can be included in the assist article. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing notice: An attempt was made to notify WikiProject Baseball of this discussion in a blatantly non-neutral manner in contravention of WP:CANVASS using the following language:

Heads up, attack on assists articles

Some editors are wanting to destroy the lists of outfield assists, here (left, center, and right in the same AfD): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders as a bad list (altho it is a full article also) -- They seem quite determined and unamenable to persuasion (although having no idea what an outfield assist is) so this looks like not a "let's together consider these articles" situation which is why I use the word "attack".

And I suppose they will succeed, assuming that the closer mainly relies on headcount or giving particular weight for certain rules.

(Infield assists are not under the gun -- yet. I see that for instance List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders is tagged for lack of notability and I suppose will be attacked sooner or later.)

Is this OK? Are outfield assists just garbage trivia not worth including among our 7.6 million articles? What about shortstop assists? What about doubles, strikeouts, GIDP, what? I'm not a project member, just a casual fan, so I don't know where the line is. I don't see anybody from this project coming to the AfD to defend the articles. Maybe you all also don't care for these articles, and fine, but if it's just a matter of not noticing this happening to baseball stat articles, consider this a heads up, thanks.

Left guide (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Templates for discussion

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Requested moves

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Baseball&oldid=1248786784"