Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Boston Massacre


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Boston Massacre
Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information and should not feature articles on every baseball game or series in existence. In the course of a 154 or 162 game season, there are numerous times when a team has a chance to take the lead or further their lead, and this one is not really any more significant than most others. The Red Sox were already in a fair amount of difficulty before this series even occured, and equating this with the 1978 collapse in which the team blew a fourteen game lead is really quite silly and just a media play to hype what is already one of the most overhyped rivalries in Baseball (hey, I think the fact that the two teams have such passionate fans is great, but to read most of the media you would think they were the only two teams playing). This is just not an earth-shattering occurance in baseball history. Indrian 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's something that hasn't happened in at least 50 years. Certain games are notable, as are certain series.  Since this is a rather rare occurance and attracted quite a bit of media attention beyond the sports pages, it's worth having an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It attracted a lot of media attention because it involved the largest media market in the United States which happens to have a fanatic baseball fanbase. It has not happened in so many years because five game series are not played as a general rule.  It is far less important than the 1978 collapse, or the 1964 Phillies collapse or the 1995 Angels collapse or the 1969 Cubs collapse or many other events in baseball history.  Teams lose five games in a row all the time, even good ones, and the entire Red Sox season did not hinge on this one event.  Should we start having articles on every incident in which a first place team got swept or a contender lost five straight games? Indrian 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. I'm a big-time Yankee fan who was sure glad to see the Sox choke, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own Wiki entry. It should certainly be mentioned in Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry and 2006 in baseball, but a whole article for a regular season series seems a bit much, especially since out of 162 games it's hard to say that 5 are more important than another. Besides, the jury's still out on this one with about 35 games left in the year. The Sox may come back to win the division (hopefully not) making the series a moot point. Also, Boston Massacre (as applied for 2006) is a neologism that hasn't withstood the test of time like 1978's Massacre has. Finally, I don't think there's precedent to give series or individual games their own article. SliceNYC 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unimportant and not encyclopedic. This wasn't any post season or record setting event. Gateman1997 23:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong This was a record setting event.  Check the second game of the double-header.
 * Delete per SliceNYC --Tocapa 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not warrant a whole article - relevant info already mentioned in Yankees-Red Sox rivalry -- No Guru 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Who is anyone to say that this won't be remembered in the future? EVERY ALCS and NLCS get their own article and some of those are the least memorable serieses ever. Can we put an "afd" on all the boring ones that nobody cares about? --Sportskido8 20:17 EST, 23 August 2006
 * Go ahead, but be prepared to take a lot of flak for it. On a more serious note, there is nothing wrong with the series being mentioned in the appropriate articles, it is just not an important enough event to include its own article and a game-by-game analysis. That's what Retrosheet is for. Indrian 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Memorable" is not a criterion to determine encyclopedic worthiness. Postseason series are automatically notable because of their magnitude. A regular season series does not automatically get that status two days after it finishes. If it becomes important and historically relevant, then it can be recreated next year, when we have the power of perspective and hindsight. SliceNYC 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was not a playoff series, but 5 random games in the middle of a 162 game season that may or may not end up having an impact on the pennant race. Does a 4 game sweep by the Cubs over the Cardinals warrant an article ? What about a 3 game sweep, or a doubleheader sweep by the A's over the Angels ? The press has to hype these things, that is thier job but at the end of the day, NY or Boston media hype does not make this article encyclopedic. No Guru 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe I went a little overboard with the game by game analysis but to be honest I was at work and really bored so I had some time. The thing is, there are so many things on here that should not be an article (not just in my opinion either) but they are. This was not just an ordinary 5 game sweep, and I'm pretty sure that people will remember this for a while to come, but if you really want to delete it then go ahead. --Sportskido8 21:04 EST, 23 August 2006
 * SK8, we're all assuming good faith here and appreciate the effort of uploading newspaper images and linescores. But at the same time, some policies of Wiki apply, such as notability and precedent (of not having individual articles on the majority of regular season games). If people remember this series as one that really had an impact on the 2006 season, you can recreate the article. For now, though, it seems too early to judge how important this is. As to your comments about things that shouldn't be on Wiki, you have a valid point, but the more quality articles and the fewer bad articles there are, the better. Remember, you're entitled to nominate any article you want and have it go through the process just like this one is. SliceNYC 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per SliceNYC. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect title to Yankees-Red Sox rivalry A week is way to soon to be able to establish sufficient notability to stand the test of time. While great for Yankee fans, this series might not be the turnining point of the AL East at the end of the season. The relevant information has already been included in the article about the rivalry. If, in hindsight, this series takes on a higher profile of notability then the article can be recreated. Agne 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Look, for all we know at this point the Red Sox could come back and win the division, or they could totally collapse and end up 20 games out so this series doesn't matter, so we really don't know yet if this will be a significant event or just a footnote in history. Redirecting to Yankees-Red Sox rivalry might not be a bad idea, as there is a good summary there. BryanG(talk) 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Redirecting isn't a bad idea, either.  Srose   (talk)  02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. This is going to be remembered just as much as the last time the Yankees swept the Red Sox which was in...  uh...  lemme see...  hmmm...  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. Page has verifiable factual details and cites sources.  205.188.116.201 06:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, above user is almost certianly the same user as, in which case it should probably be noted that they keep vandalizing this AfD--205.188.116.201 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, recentism. The series may seem important today, but by the time next seasons comes-around, the coverage in Yankees-Red Sox rivalry and 2006 in baseball alone will probably seem appropriate.  A redirect is ok with me too.  Also note that none of the images seem to qualify for fair use, with no commentary about the newspaper itself. ×Meegs 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to sprotect the article itself, before the disgruntled, yankee fan, AOL anon removes the AfD notice again In the mean time, I'll just keep reverting them--205.188.116.201 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Details for regular season games and series don't really belong here. It's a nice-looking vanity article for Yankees fans that would serve as a reminder of how poorly managed the Red Sox franchise has been since 2004, but in all honesty it's a series worthy of a small paragraph on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page and nothing more. Yankees76 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've sprotected this page. If someone is blocked from legitimately editing, please add a vote/comment to the talk page and a non-blocked user can move the vote/comment here for you.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This follows all rules, and provides a legitimate page.  A new record for baseball was made.  A powerful blow was dealt in one of the most famous aspects of baseball in America.  This is certainly notable, and deserves its own page.  We will see at the end of the season what effect that has, and if there is none, then perhaps it will be deleted, however, this is a powerful current event and a historical moment in the Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry, the American League East, and baseball in general. Silent Wind of Doom 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What "record" are you referring to? If you mean a news event, this isn't WikiNews.  To me, if a baseball event were that important, it would be the top headline on SportsCenter even after it was complete.  That's not the case here.  The rest of us baseball fans have already forgotten.  There are no articles for the 1978 Bucky Dent game or the 1986 Game 6, etc. and those no doubt will always be far more famous than yet another occasion of the Yankees stomping the Red Sox.  If the Yankees win the WS this year and this is still being talked about afterwards, I'll be happy to undelete this myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weak keep but for a slightly different reason: I think that only time will tell if the vernacular phrase "2006 Boston Massacre" has much sticking power. (I will admit right up front that I don't follow baseball, so I don't know.) If that phrase is just something that a Yankees devotee would use for vanity purposes, then I'd say to delete it. But if in a few years (even 2 or 3 years) the general sports world refers to it with that name, then its validity is established.  I'm not knowledgeable enough on baseball, or baseball taxonomy, to agree/disagree with Yankees76 about instead having it on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page but that seems like a reasonable middle ground. Perhaps it could be moved there, and then if time grows the series' legend, it can once again have its own page.  Migp 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)migP
 * Comment Many neologisms have been defended in AfD under the same reasoning "It might become more notable in a few years" and still they got deleted because of the guidelines of WP:NEO. For all consideration the event maybe notable enough for mention on the Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry page but the term "2006 Boston Massacre" is a neologism in every sense of the word. Agne 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, just too minor an event. The mentions in the other articles are more than adequate. Recury 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks fine to me. 71.250.145.62 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Eugh. Title makes it even worse - like it's a terrorist event. HawkerTyphoon 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow, this article sure got a lot of attention. --Sportskido8 23:43 EST, 24 August 2006
 * Delete If the article on a hockey team's failed playoff run gets deleted, an article about the Yankees beating the Red Sox (as usual) during the regular season definitely doesn't belong either. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and massive sockpuppetry involved with this whole deal. Ryūlóng 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While four-game series are uncommon (let alone five-game series sweeps) these days, this may be more appropriate in Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, 2006 in baseball, and maybe in the history sections of the two teams. The event is too recent to see if it has any actual historical signifance. -- Win777 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are several undoubtedly pivotal series that deserve articles before this one. This series was in the middle of August and the Yankees were already leading the division.  How about the last regular season series between Detroit and Toronto in 1987?  With the Blue Jays up by a game, the Tigers had to win 2-of-3 to force a one-game playoff but, instead, won all three to win the division by 2 games - with Frank Tanana pitching a 1-0 shutout to clinch.  Toronto last the last seven games of the season to blow a 3½ game lead in a week.  Keeping this article without making that one is just recentism and Yankee-cruft gone wild. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may be a case of recentism. How about the principal editor moves it into a sandbox in his userspace? If the series still seems important at this time next year, he can just move it back into article space. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Perhaps we can find a compromise here. There is no denying that this is a big event in baseball, an event that broke a record, and changed a penant race.  Perhaps we can move the article to the Baseball Wiki, and link to there from the Boston, New York, and Rivalry pages.  The article will exist, and be linked to, but it won't be an actual part of the main Wikipedia. --Silent Wind of Doom 06:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.