Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball business rules

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 of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article that, if ever fleshed out, should be a section in some other article. I would merge somewhere but there's essentially no content to merge so I vote delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What is this trying even to be? --Deville (Talk) 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup. If this article was cleaned up then I would consider merging it or even allowing it to stay itself. SorryGuy 06:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It should be in Major League Baseball. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete, should be in some related article. --Terence Ong 11:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added some examples so you will know what I'm really talking about here. Eventually I will expand this article greatly with many more examples. It may even become a whole category itself, similar to Category:Baseball rules which covers the playing rules but would cover the rules governing the business side of baseball. JP 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand Seems reasonable to outline these rules on wikipedia. It would just clutter up a generic baseball article. It can clearly outline issues that a summary could not do. Ansell 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This is an important start. RGTraynor 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'll agree that this could eventually become a separate article - but it isn't now and it's not even close. We don't generally break sections of articles out into separate articles until they're cluttering up the original article. This is like having a Charles Darwin's education article when there isn't that much in Charles Darwin and there's no actual content ready for Charles Darwin's education. It wouldn't make sense... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true, but should we be hasty to remove things and put them back into articles which are already mature, and where this topic will not gain the attention it could if it were on its own without immediate restrictions on its length. Ansell 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to admit that, in the state it was in when I originally nominated it, this article wasn't going to get any attention anyway. So if this little exercise has gotten it filled out a bit, then everyone wins. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree w/ wknight94 in general but since there already is an article and category for the playing rules of baseball I am trying to begin a parallel development for the business rules of baseball. I have tried to flesh out the page a bit more but it is still just a stub at this point. JP 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not sure this is the best title, but baseball has a LOT of procedural rules and restrictions, and it'd be good to have an article on them. Plenty of room for expansion, and Major League Baseball is big enough that it started spinning off separate articles a long time ago. -Colin Kimbrell 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Good idea, but the article needs to be expanded vastly. Wstaffor 21:23, 18 April 2006 (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.