Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Binghamton Mets season


 * 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. Courcelles 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2008 Binghamton Mets season

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Also included: Same rationale as Articles for deletion/1980 Lynn Sailors season; individual minor league seasons aren't by themselves notable, any resources we have should go to the main team article and improve that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2008 Akron Aeros season
 * 2008 Altoona Curve season
 * 2008 Bowie Baysox season
 * 2008 Connecticut Defenders season
 * 2008 Erie SeaWolves season
 * 2008 Harrisburg Senators season
 * 2008 New Hampshire Fisher Cats season
 * 2008 Portland Sea Dogs season
 * 2008 Reading Phillies season
 * 2008 Trenton Thunder season
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all and I believe there's a whole lot more where that came from. See Category:Akron_Aeros_seasons, Category:Canton-Akron Indians seasons, Category:2009 Eastern League season, possibly Akron Aeros seasons and Harrisburg Senators seasons as at least merge candidates. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. None of these articles make any kind of assertion of notability. The only one that might even have such a claim might be the Thunder as league champions, but even that would be dubious at best. -Dewelar (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all None of the seasons are individually notable, including the of the Trenton Thunder, which won the Eastern League title that year. These things are tolerated while the season is going on, serving as someone's personal sports page that can be updated whenever they want it to be, but once the season is over, even the people who created the article get bored with it.  Sometimes it's even sooner, as with this page and several others that stopped after a month or two upon the realization that it wasn't a good idea to begin with.  With incomplete pages, there's no point even in doing a redirect.  Mandsford 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-notable. Secret account 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-notable, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: As the creator of this article, and I believe the rest of them listed, it doesn't matter to me if they get deleted. However, I would like to note that the reason I feel this way is because of the article's incompleteness, not because of the articles not being notable. If Major League seasons are considered notable and not subject to deletion, then minor league seasons should be as well. There is no difference between the two in notability, except maybe popularity. Say the NFL is more popular than the NHL, does that mean we should not have season articles for the NHL? Wikipedia was not founded to serve the purpose of simply NFL fans. It was founded to be an open online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a book of reference. These articles nominated for deletion are reference articles, and they are notable. The problem is they are incomplete, they haven't been edited, because I personally was unable to commit myself to the time of adding the details of every game. I personally believe it is unfair to call these articles non-notable. If the MLB team season articles follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then these articles nominated to be deleted absolutely follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So like I said, I don't really care about the outcome of this AFD, because I haven't even edited Wikipedia in over a year. I only care that everyone realizes that these articles deserve to be deleted for their incompleteness, not because of their notability. Thanks for considering, and please provide your input. Branson03 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference in the level of play between the Eastern League and Major League Baseball, as well as between any other minor league and its major league. Regardless of the popularity of the NFL versus the NHL, they are the highest level of play in those sports. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point. However, the highest level of football is the NFL, and smaller football league called the UFL has team's season articles. Why are you so against the articles anyway? Wikipedia was founded to be inclusive. The purpose was to create a remarkable pool of human knowledge. If you delete these articles, then you are working against the founding principles of this site. I honestly don't get why you all are against minor league season articles. Wikipedia users should welcome new ideas. Not crumple them up and stomp them to the ground. And to Mandsford, I think what you said about serving the purpose of the creator for the season is horrible. Wikipedia page's are not someone's personal project. All users work together to further and improve the content of this encyclopedia. These articles nominated for deletion are not my personal project. All users have every right to edit them. These articles were not created for my purposes. I created them for the people who Wikipedia is really here for, the readers. It was supposed to be a reference for minor league fans. It was supposed to be a collection on information from different sources all on one page. It was exactly what Wikipedia was founded for. I completely understand the purpose of AFDs, and I feel that these article merit their AFD because they are incomplete. If they were complete articles, then they should not qualify for AFD. Wikipedia is all about the collection of knowledge, as Jimbo says in his personal appeal at the top of every page. We are working against this purpose if we reject new ideas. Anyone who rejects an idea, such as minor league team season articles, is not working towards the goal of this website. Branson03 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are working from several mistaken premises here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate informaion, nor is it supposed to include everything. Simply saying other similar stuff exists isn't enough either. Existence ≠ notability. For articles whose notability is not presumed to be inherent, like MLB season articles, notability needs to be asserted within the article, to the degree that they pass the general notability guidelines. None of these articles do that, and that would be true whether they or not they're "complete". Such articles also need to have sources that offer more than routine coverage, and none of these articles meet that threshold either. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to these types of articles, but they have to actually meet the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia, which are higher than you give them credit for being. -Dewelar (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These articles do not fall into any of the six categories presented by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They are not a plot only description of a work, a lyrical database, list of statistics (statistics are not the same thing as baseball statistics), a news report, a who's who, or a faq. If you believe that it does fall into any of those categories, then all MLB team season articles do not meat "Wikipedia's inclusion standards." Now, you call say my argument is in the arguments to avoid, but if you read the guideline, you will see that just because it is listed does not mean that the argument is invalid, so, your argument against my argument is flawed. That is an essay, not a rule, its something to follow, not to cite. According to WP:FAILN, deletion of articles of questionable nobility should be a last resort. There has been absolutely no discussion prior to the AFD as to the notability of these articles. It is obvious that if I created an article about myself, that the article would not be notable. However, if the notability of an article is questionable, which it seems to be in this case, then deletion should be a resort after a discussion involving editors. Editors who routinely edit on the subject of the article (in this case, minor league baseball), should all be notified of the discussion to avoid pro-deletion editors who rarely edit articles on the subject from controlling Wikipedia's stance on that subject. So as I've said before, my main concern is that you are assuming notability in this case. No one has ever tried this before, and it has never been discussed before. Should I have started a discussion before I created the article? Sure, but it was not needed if following WP:BEBOLD. The editor who believe this should be nominated for deletion with questionable notability should have done exactly what I suggested above. Discuss the problem with other editors, notifying editors who edit regularly on the subject of the problem, and attempt to reach a consensus. If anyone is against this approach (for automatic deletion without prior discussion), then Wikipedia has changed, and it's for the worse. Lastly, your arguments about MLB being more important then MiLB are invalidated by WP:POPULARITY. Branson03 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been discussion on this topic, both at the baseball project talk page and, more recently, at the sports notability guideline talk page (a discussion I personally started, and which was prompted by the precedent-setting AfD linked above) in an attempt to establish guidelines under which they might be notable. As it pertains to minor league season articles such as these, it has been long established that they are not inherently notable, as MLB season articles are presumed to be, and as such are required to pass WP:GNG. I still see no evidence that any of these articles do so, nor are you making any attempt to present such evidence. This entire argument would be rendered moot if such evidence were brought forward. I appreciate your passion for this subject, but without bringing evidence to bear, I predict it will prove quixotic at best. -Dewelar (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2010 (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.