Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 5 draft results

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 No consensus. Maxim(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 5 draft results

edit

Unnessary list, info can be found most other places in the web, it's already 32 KB and only about ten years out of more than 50 is listed, Wikipedia isn't a list of stats, which I consider this to be, also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT, and no prose really can't be formed out of this list, prod removed Delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All of the things that Jaranda cites are either inaccurate or insufficient reasons to delete. Taking them one at a time:
  1. found most other places in the web: In theory, ALL the information in Wikipedia can be found elsewhere (that's the point of WP:V in the first place). Furthermore, even if a particular piece of information is currently found on another site, there's no guarantee that the information will continue to remain there in the long run. The site's operator could get bored, or run out of money, or die. If it's here, we know that it's going to be here for as long as we need/want it.
  2. it's already 32 KB: The length of the list is irrelevant. There are much longer lists in the encyclopedia, and even if people decide that the list's current format is unworkable, it could be broken down into subpages (as with List of Major League Baseball players) for a cleaner page display.
  3. Wikipedia isn't a list of stats: There are no stats on this page. Names, teams, and positions, but no stats. The section dealing with this in WP:NOT#INFO is meant to deal with telephone directories and such, not an ordered list such as this one.
  4. also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT: WP:LISTSCRUFT (an essay, not a policy), states that lists are permissible when they are closely tied to a topic which has its own article, and are discouraged when they are tied to a topic that does not support a standalone article. As such, this list appears to pass the standard, not fail it, since it is an extension of material covered in Rule 5 draft.

Given that the reasons cited in the nomination are therefore invalid, it should be kept. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All are relevant, wikipedia it's an encyclopedia. This is a topic for a sports alamac, not here, the list is far from complete, when it does get completed, it will easily be 200 or more KB, and the topic, while it meets WP:V, it isn't notable for individual articles on it's own right. My fault on the stats, but it's just a directory of players who really doesn't have anything in common other then that they played baseball and that they were drafted, it meets 2, 3, 7, and especially 8 of the listcruft criteria. The players who played major league baseball is already mentioned in the Rule 5 article, everything else is a list of nn minor leaguers. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jaranda keeps using his "not a sports almanac" reasoning, but an almanac actually is a type of encyclopedia. In any event, this list seems perfectly within the realm of other baseball related lists. Spanneraol 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that we already have articles for a lot of the red links; they just aren't crosslinked properly because someone used the guy's full name instead of his common name (or vice versa). Going through with just a casual glance a few minutes ago, I blued misnamed links to Dave Maurer, Steve Andrade, Alejandro De Aza, Dewon Day, and Willie Collazo. Many more of the redlinks are guys who had short ML careers, but haven't had an article created for them yet (Joe Valentine, Mike Neu, Jose Morban, Chris Mabeus, Jeff Bennett, Rodrigo Rosario, Chris Demaria, Corey Thurman, Ryan Christenson, etc.) Many of the rest also meet notability standards for having been minor-league All Stars, or participated in international competitions, or played in top foreign leagues. There are a few who haven't done anything of note, but it'd be a lot easier to just un-link those names than it would be to delete the entire list. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate lists like these. At any rate, just put this in the article on the team that drafted the person. If it doesn't belong in the article, it doesn't belong in a list. i said 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Absolutely encyclopedic. List meets WP:LIST. It has clear, definable (and relatively unique) criteria and provides a service that categories or individual articles do not. I dislike lists too, but you can't argue when they meet the rules, and this one meets the rules. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far from clear for a user who doesn't like sports, the list itself isn't really that useful, and doesn't really have a clear purpose that other sites like ESPN have. We are not them Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, of course the list isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like sports. George Washington isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like history, but we shouldn't delete that, either. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you are comparing obvious notable subjects to poor lists like this Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every Wikipedian needs to find this list useful for it to stay. None of us are an expert in everything and we all find a sizable portion of the million pages on this encyclopedia uninteresting and not at all useful. Luckily the Wikipedia do not ask us to judge how useful or interesting an article is - they simply ask us to apply series of tests to the article, and if it passes, it stays. This is list with a finite number of entries (players taken in a rule 5 draft). Membership in the list is determined from an external source - Wikipedians do not use original research or their own judgement to add members to this list. The subject of the list (Rule 5 Draft) is notable. Many, if not all of the members on the list are notable as members of a professional baseball team. Even if you do not understand a thing about sports, you can clearly see that this passes WP:LIST, and thats all Wikipedia is asking of you today. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with CosmicPenguin. It's a list like any other. It should stay. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator is correct, this type of information belongs in some sort of sports almanac, not an encyclopedia. Not even an electronic encyclopedia, sorry. Burntsauce 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not unknown for encyclopedias of the traditional kind to have apendixes of stats and tables, the reason they have them and the reason why wikipedia should tolerate such pages is that it provides information that can illuminate the content of an article without disrupting the trajectory of the prose of an article. KTo288 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 02:22, 22 September 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rule_5_draft_results&oldid=1138322433"