Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball player nicknames
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of baseball player nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing here that isn't in the player's respective articles. Albacore (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see why we shouldn't list them by their nicknames. Borock (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cruftacious list, will never really be complete. Blueboy96 22:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a very interesting page and why delete it?Ltlane777 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 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, Cerejota (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This qualifies as notable? Every nickname should be cited, they aren't. Most of the current citations are "dead". Put the nicknames in their own biogs, nothing really is gained by collecting them in a list. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 00:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Logical connection, finite list, useful function as a source of in-links. Sourcing needs work (as is true for many pages on WP), but it is accurate so far as I can see. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as glossary; as such meets MOS for stand alone list. Easily sourceable, though potentially extensive. Is properly constructed for such expansion. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Buster, I'm curious as to what you mean by Glossary. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, that doesn't really seem to apply since these are not definitions. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a strange way, yes I do think of them as definitions. Catfish: Jim Hunter. Mr. October: Reggie Jackson. Most of these are easily sourceable, given access to GoogleBooks and their complete online collection of the Baseball Digest. You're correct that redirects might be sufficient, but since we can do both easily, I don't see why an accumulation in one list would violate indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...yes, I sorta see what you mean. Of course, then we run into WP:NOTDIC. Just kidding, just kidding, :P. Anyway here is, in one sentence, my exact reasoning: the topic as a whole isn't notable, and much of the individual entries aren't verifiable (in my mind, at least) therefore delete per NLIST, and INDIS. If all nicknames could be sourced, which should be the case anyway, and RS's discussing the topic as a whole could be found, this would be an easy keep. However, I don't see that. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a strange way, yes I do think of them as definitions. Catfish: Jim Hunter. Mr. October: Reggie Jackson. Most of these are easily sourceable, given access to GoogleBooks and their complete online collection of the Baseball Digest. You're correct that redirects might be sufficient, but since we can do both easily, I don't see why an accumulation in one list would violate indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Buster, I'm curious as to what you mean by Glossary. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, that doesn't really seem to apply since these are not definitions. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Random intersection of topics (the notable player w/ the non-notable nickname). Also, Listcruft, if you want to find the players nickname you would look on the Players Article, not in a list of nicknames. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Carrite. Lists that compile data about notable subjects in a manner that's been found interesting to at least one editor are useful navigation tools, and this one looks better developed than most. The claim that all of the information here belongs in articles about the individual players is no obstacle to compiling this list. The fact that an external website has changed its structure does not even turn this into an unreferenced list. We easily could have a stand alone article on baseball nicknames, in which case this article would be an almost necessary complement to it. I see no policy that this list violates. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Indiscriminate? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't begin to even imagine how WP:Indiscriminate applies. This is no more "indiscriminate" than, say, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not seeing the applicable section of WP:Indiscriminate. IMHO, this is a specialized glossary and as such fits perfectly into what is expected of a stand-alone list. The list performs a navigation function which the individual articles and relevant categories do not perform. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I see as an indiscriminate list - maybe its not to others, I don't know - any list which has multiple entries (nicknames, in this case), that aren't notable enough for their own article, and many of which aren't WP:VERIFIABLE. I realize that WP:LISTN says that not all individual entries must be "independently notable", but none of these entries are notable, and furthermore, I see no evidence that the "group or set is notable" and hence - indiscriminate. There is no "navigation" function...because none of the nicknames have articles. The only bluelinks are the players themselves, and so redirects from each nickname to each player would work fine. This isn't remotely close to 2010 AHS (mainly because AHS isn't a list). AHS is entirely verifiable plus, each "entry" (as well as the list as a whole) is clearly notable enough for its own article. At present, there are no RS's discussing baseball nicknames as a whole, and GNG applies to lists just as much as prose. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of nicknames: it's a list of professional baseball players, all of whom are likely notable under WP:ATHLETE, who have nicknames conferred by sports journalists. The nicknames themselves are at minimum verifiable; names won't make the list until they achieve some currency in sports sources. Redirecting nicknames to players will not work well, not even as entries on a disambiguation page: Duke > Edwin Snider, Chicken > Fred Stanley, Scrap Iron > Phil Garner??? I also don't see these as so numerous that the list will never be complete; there's a finite number of pro baseball players, and only those routinely referred to by nickname by sports journalists will get entries on the page. There's quite a history in baseball, of course, so there may well be quite a few of them. I'm still not seeing grounds to delete this article. The perennial problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that it's rather indiscriminate itself. This article is nothing like any of the listed examples, at minimum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a list of nicknames? Umm, what's the title? And are the player's names or the nicknames listed in alphabetical order? This is most certainly a list of nicknames. Yes, the athletes are notable, but that's not what the article is about. It's about their nicknames, and the vast majority of the nicknames are not notable. Per NLIST, this in and of itself isn't a problem if the overall topic (nicknames in baseball) is notable, but I'm not seeing that either. That's what makes this different then the Hurricane article. As to redirects, yes, you've picked the obvious ones. There are many others, if not most of them, for which redirects would do fine. And if these nicknames are commonly referred to by journalists, then there shouldn't be any problem with sourcing, but that's not what I see. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of nicknames: it's a list of professional baseball players, all of whom are likely notable under WP:ATHLETE, who have nicknames conferred by sports journalists. The nicknames themselves are at minimum verifiable; names won't make the list until they achieve some currency in sports sources. Redirecting nicknames to players will not work well, not even as entries on a disambiguation page: Duke > Edwin Snider, Chicken > Fred Stanley, Scrap Iron > Phil Garner??? I also don't see these as so numerous that the list will never be complete; there's a finite number of pro baseball players, and only those routinely referred to by nickname by sports journalists will get entries on the page. There's quite a history in baseball, of course, so there may well be quite a few of them. I'm still not seeing grounds to delete this article. The perennial problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that it's rather indiscriminate itself. This article is nothing like any of the listed examples, at minimum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I see as an indiscriminate list - maybe its not to others, I don't know - any list which has multiple entries (nicknames, in this case), that aren't notable enough for their own article, and many of which aren't WP:VERIFIABLE. I realize that WP:LISTN says that not all individual entries must be "independently notable", but none of these entries are notable, and furthermore, I see no evidence that the "group or set is notable" and hence - indiscriminate. There is no "navigation" function...because none of the nicknames have articles. The only bluelinks are the players themselves, and so redirects from each nickname to each player would work fine. This isn't remotely close to 2010 AHS (mainly because AHS isn't a list). AHS is entirely verifiable plus, each "entry" (as well as the list as a whole) is clearly notable enough for its own article. At present, there are no RS's discussing baseball nicknames as a whole, and GNG applies to lists just as much as prose. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not seeing the applicable section of WP:Indiscriminate. IMHO, this is a specialized glossary and as such fits perfectly into what is expected of a stand-alone list. The list performs a navigation function which the individual articles and relevant categories do not perform. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't begin to even imagine how WP:Indiscriminate applies. This is no more "indiscriminate" than, say, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Indiscriminate? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as an WP:Indiscriminate list. It will never be complete, will never be fully sourced (currently only 50 of 350-ish), and these belong in the individual players articles. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: since many real-life baseball and team encyclopedias have section devoted to nicknames, and this is sourced, it seems reasonable to keep Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Other(Projects?)Exist and note that there are 50 (mostly dead) links for over 300 entries. Also, if I'm coming across as badgering will someone please slap me? I just find it simply mind-boggling that a list of this size would have few-to-no comments about the lack of references and overall notability. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, "this article is crap" isn't enough. If part of the article is referenced, which it is, that's enough. And redlinks? This is an AFD, not a GA nomination Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying this article is crap. I'm saying this list is almost entirely unsourced. I most certainly do not believe that only partially sourcing anything is the way to go. And I have no issue with redlinks at all (I think that is in response to my notability comment?). It's the notability of the overall subject that I find lacking. You'll find plenty of sources saying that Ruth was the Babe - there's no issue with some of the individual nicknames. However, per WP:LISTN, I don't see anything about baseball nicknames in general. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, "this article is crap" isn't enough. If part of the article is referenced, which it is, that's enough. And redlinks? This is an AFD, not a GA nomination Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Other(Projects?)Exist and note that there are 50 (mostly dead) links for over 300 entries. Also, if I'm coming across as badgering will someone please slap me? I just find it simply mind-boggling that a list of this size would have few-to-no comments about the lack of references and overall notability. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't really see how a list like this can ever be anything other then indiscriminate information. Are their sources discussing nicknames in Baseball or individual nicknames? If not, this has no place in Wikipedia. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 28 August 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.