Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3000–500 club


 * 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. clear consensus Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

3000–500 club, 3000–300 club, 300–300 club and 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lists built on arbitrary cutoffs, not a notable way to differentiate between players. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Uh...what? The third one especially is kind of pointless.  Put this information in each player's article (i.e. this player is a member of the 3000-500 club) or something.  The fact that one uses stolen bases and the others don't makes the listing type entirely confusing.  CycloneGU (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The last article, 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club, was added after I !voted. CycloneGU (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, you were super fast with your vote and I wasn't quite done adding related articles, but I am now. Does that change your vote? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/28/sports/baseball-bonds-joins-300-300-club-before-ejection.html A San Francisco Chronicle article about it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/giants/detail?entry_id=6157 A Chicago Tribune article about it: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-28/sports/9604280264_1_homers-barry-bonds-steal A KC Royals website article about it: http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20060619&content_id=1513261&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc&affiliateId=CommentWidget You hear sports broadcasters talking about these kind of statistical clubs all of the time - it is one of their favorite topics. Fan and memorabilia websites also often are filled with discussion of these types of clubs. The articles themselves are trivially verifiable and a make nice addition to Wikipedia.Brholden (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 17:50, 25 April 2011
 * Delete All - Running a couple random statistical filters simultaneously and pasting over the results does not make an encyclopedia article. We need to stop this sort of nonsense right now. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All - The 300-300 Club in particular is a well known and honored baseball milestone.
 * As far as I can tell, those sources you produced suggest that it's worth mentioning as feats accomplished on the pages of the individual members, but fail to indicate the widespread coverage that would be needed for its own article. And you're saying "keep all" while failing to discuss all but one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see sources that describe the significance of the feat beyond trivial coverage saying "XYZ joined the 300-300 club which also includes ...." Otherwise, this seems like stat cruft. —Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly the 300-300 club is the one of these that stands apart. The following St. Louis Post-Dispatch reference is entitled "Reggie Sanders: Claiming his place in Baseball History." "Sanders was asked if the numbers are meaningful to him.  'Are you kidding me?' Sanders answered. 'That's a huge feat.'"   http://books.google.com/books?id=5C4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=300-300+club+finley+sanders&source=bl&ots=yFN4BuQZg9&sig=Fh8CHlKdzmdh9Xv74Bn7woG7blM&hl=en&ei=jPq2TavSDcu2tweqg9COAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=300-300%20club%20finley%20sanders&f=false  The 300-300 club is very well known in the baseball world; it would be ridiculous to delete that article.  Google returns 826,000 hits for the search "300-300 club.  What more do you need than multiple New York Times articles and 826K Google hits - it is notable in and of itself.  The 300-300 club is that pinnacle career milestone that shows a player's devastating combination of power plus speed.  Clearly, the other clubs listed are of a different nature, and if you feel compelled to delete something, remove them.  However, I personally feel that they add that next level of detail to Wikipedia and are worth keeping.Brholden (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all Per WP:NOT, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the article on each club have not been found that discuss indepth the club as a whole and the significance of the feat, and need to go beyond trivial coverage of the milestone by an individual player or trivial mention of its members . This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG which requires "more than a trivial mention". For the 300-300 club specifically, I found lots of sources that mention the term "300-300 club" and even mentions all of its members; however, the references do not describe the significance of reaching the club aside from its currently small number of members.  I am wary of calling this notable without sources supporting that its more than just a statistical anomaly, again per WP:NOT#STATS. —Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not taking a stance yet. My initial thought was, if the topic was not directly addressed as the subject of article, book, etc, then the subject fails WP:N.  I moseyed over there and rechecked it:
 * Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * I think it is clear that there are not many articles that address this directly. The question then is:  do the mentions in articles that are being found constitute "trivial coverage" or "more than trivial coverage".  If many articles are making reference to this in passing, is that more than trivial?  I am sitting on the fence on this one for the time being.
 * I personally do not accept that these articles describe random milestones, however I also think that there could be a great deal of merging, at the bare minimum. Having said that, personal opinion, and a million fans blogging about it is not sufficient reason for anything to stay.
 * There is also something to be said about WP:NOT PAPER. I think it could be argued that information of this kind would generally be included in a baseball encyclopedia, and as such it at least must be reasonably considered for entry here.
 * This is not as cut and dry as I thought it might be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT PAPER a good point, but it also says in that section, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." One of the items in "the Content section below" is WP:NOT —Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over at Not#Stats:
 * Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.
 * I agree that in the tradition of Wikipedia, articles which are lists of numbers are generally not supported for inclusion. Ironically, if anything, most of these articles up for deletion I wouldn't consider to be "excessive listings" ... quite the opposite ... perhaps they are too short to be independently notable (an opinion, hardly fact).  I also think that there is text in these articles that (at least attempts to) explain the statistics being listed.
 * I guess what I am thinking is: if somewhere out there, there is some reliable source that can explain why these particular "clubs" are what they are (why is 3000-500 so big a deal vs. 3000-450 or 3000-400?), then I'm not 100% sure that NOT#STATS is, by the letter of its description, is a reason to preclude this.
 * I certainly see your point, Bagumba. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel NOT#STATS precludes any of these articles either, because they are fairly balanced in terms of the amount of statistics they cover. However, these articles fail to meet the threshold of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because they fail WP:GNG, I think NOT#STATS also applies because it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Perhaps a matter of interpretation, but bottom line is these statistics dont seem to have meaning notable enough for its own article. —Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - In my heart, I know these collections are notable, but in the absence of sourcing ... and I have been looking, I agree that they are not deserving of separate articles. I would hope that if it is deleted, please keep it open for future re-creation, should coverage threshold be met.  There may be factually correct text to frame it, but I really think it has to be verifiable to meet that guideline, and it is not.  Maybe I will do more searching over the summer, but for now, I'm empty. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the four references above to the 300-300 club article and removed its unreferenced tag. Brholden (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Those articles are pretty pointless. 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 3000–300 club and 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club; keep 300-300 club - I don't see any sourcing for 3000–300 club or 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club, and I don't recall those ever being combined in that way to any large extent. But 300-300 club does seem to have sourcing, so I would keep.  I am not expressing an opinion at this time on 3000-500 club, since although the article is not sourced, I can recall discussions of this "club" at times in the past, but don't have the time to properly investigate now. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a Yankee fan, read all the blogs and tweets from beat writers, etc., and I had no idea that A Rod joined the "300-300 club" last season until I read it when I AfD'd it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a little surprised that didn't get much coverage, since apparently a bigger deal was made when Barry Bonds , Reggie Sanders and Steve Finley , and maybe Andre Dawson .  But we all know how much NY sportwriters love A Rod.  And A Rod has bigger accomplishments in his sights. I think the 300-300 club only started getting attention in the mid-late 80s, when the 30-30 club became popular.  But ath the time only Mays and Bonds Sr. had achieved it.Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 300-300 Club as it has sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2011 (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.