Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game


 * 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 WP:SNOW (a non-admin close). However whatever (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)]]

Armando Galarraga&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

If this article is allowed to stay, what about the countless other no-hitters that ended up one-hitters due to an umpire or official scorer? Had Johnny Vander Meer not been the victim of a questionable call, he would have had three consecutive no-hitters, to give one example. Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk &#124; contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the event has achieved significant coverage, particularly outside of the sports world. It's not unusual for a sports controversy or a notable play to have its own article. For an event like this, it has been discussed in many different contexts - the historic possibilities of the perfect game, the implications for instant replay, and the sportsmanship involved. The information needed to sufficiently cover this event would probably be too much to include in either Jim Joyce's or Armando Galarraga's article, so I support there being a separate article to cover the subject. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instant Lore - This should stay because it has become an instant MLB lore and will be discussed for a long time, I don't want this to end up like the 4th and 2, which is no longer had it's own artictle, eventhough it had effects on the Patriots season. Final answer, should stay permanet. Talladega87 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The game has received national media attention and calls from politicians to overturn the ruling. The article is well sourced and encyclopedic.  Gobonobo  T C 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This event is unique and different from other near-perfect games in the way that it ended, with the questionable call at the base. Just about every other game in which the pitcher got the first 26 outs has ended as either a perfect game or with a clean hit (Maybe Milt Pappas' game could be an exception, but an article could be made on that game too).  I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4 in that the game is notable based on the implications of possibly expanding instant replay.  Frank Anchor Talk 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With the unique circumstances of this game, it is more notable than the other two perfect games that occurred this year. I don't think this article opens the door for other "just-missed" games since the uniqueness of this event will probably never happen again. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "Armando Galarraga nearly became the 21st pitcher in Major League history to throw a perfect game." But he DIDN'T. And becoming the 21st would have been of dubious notability anyway. Controversy surrounding the decision by the umpire? Under the current rules, the umpire decides. Period. I DO think the keeping of this article would open many doors for near-whatever things in everything down to the Knurdling Championship of Rutland. It may be (wiki) news, but notable on Wikipedia? I say no. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A significant event in baseball history, and will become especially so if it leads to replay being used in MLB.  The extreme news coverage of the event and the existence of articles on other notable plays and games seem to make this a clear keep. walkie (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. It hasn't had that effect yet. When it does (if it does...), it may merit an article. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep For now, at least. By this time next year, it can probably be tucked into the main article on Armando. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Usually a simple delete, but with almost everyone from the umpire himself to the Indians thinking the call was wrong and all of the media attention, and it was not only a final out situation and may lead to more challenges and replay situations in baseball this definitely is a very unique case.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Super-dooper Keep, but re-name It's already become baseball lore, though I think it could use a new page title. --Raderick (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest "The 28-hitter Perfect Game"? It's already been used by a bunch of pundits. --Raderick (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that name is supposed to mean, but in any case, it strongly violates WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. The article's name is fine. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Within minutes of the game ending, it was solidified as one of the most controversial games in MLB history.  It is a well written and sourced article (although there's a disproportionate amount of ESPN sources).  As far as renaming the article, I think the current non-colloquial title is very befitting. As with all new articles, it needs some work, and it's very important that the article stays away from speculative information about "what could happen" because of the game. —  ♣  №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪  01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In fairness to the nominator, who appears to be a baseball fan, Harvey Haddix's game is in his own article, and none of the perfect games in MLB history have their own separate article. Still, what the hell, at the moment, people want to consult Wikipedia to read the details of this particular game.  I'm sure someone will say Wikinews, and most people's response would be WTF is Wikinews anyway (what or where can be used for the W, variations on the F are encouraged).  I believe that, eventually -- but not right now, and stop worrying about it-- it will be merged into Galarraga's article by baseball fans following a discussion on the talk page.  Mandsford 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This'll be remember as a very significant screw-up in MLB history. It won't go away anytime soon. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's nothing incorrect or untrue on this article that is legitimate reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.60.244 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, with a possible re-examination later. As of right now, I feel it doesn't run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, however I'm willing to concede that its too close to the actual event to be sure my opinion won't change. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is suitably referenced, definitely notable may be merged later in player's own article, but enough substance to stand on its own. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - why are we even discussing this? Clearly notable.  GregJackP (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article should stay up, as it notes a time in baseball history that does not happen that often, if ever. Signothetimes90 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete - just an incoherent other stuff complaint. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The controversial play in question will go down throughout all of history as one of the most memorable moments in Major League Baseball history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.180.16 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Bud Selig made it notable when he announced that this has event prompted him to review the need for instant replay in baseball. I'd say Jim Joyce's tears also make it notable!  --User101010 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge, although obviously the consensus is headed elsewhere. This could easily be covered at Armando Galarraga, a number of the keep votes are not based on policy or fail to address the reasons for deletion (eg: it will be significant in the future, or there's nothing "incorrect or untrue" about it). Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per prior comments. A better page title might be considered, though.--JayJasper (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but all this can be covered at the Galaragga page. None of the actual perfect games have their own pages. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, and this isn't a perfect game. It was stopped short of one because of a call, one that seems to have had more implications aside from deciding whether the 27th batter of a game was safe or out. There are numerous articles dedicated to blown calls, controversial endings, or memorable events/plays (e.g. The Play ("THE BAND IS ON THE FIELD!"), Music City Miracle, Disco Demolition Night, The Catch (baseball), Eli Manning pass to David Tyree). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep One of the most memorable plays in MLB hisory, also could be the play that leads to instant reply in baseball.--Yankees10 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Certain games in baseball history are so significant and/or notorious that they deserve in-depth treatment. This belongs in the same category as the Pine Tar Incident, the Shot Heard 'Round the World and others. (Note to Mandsford: Your comment that other perfect games don't have have a separate article is incorrect. There is an article on Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I wonder why that one is singled out, especially since there is no article on the most famous perfect game ever, that by Don Larsen. Given the rarity of perfect games — only 20! — perhaps there should be an article on each one, as well as near-misses such as those by Harvey Haddix and Ernie Shore. But that is another discussion.) Thank you. — Michael J  17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This article is of historical significance and of encyclopedic value. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also (sorry for the double post) the Johnny Vander Meer analogy is out of place. This was one out away from being a perfect game --not a no-hitter. There is no equivalent -if there were- it would have its own article. Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder if this article would have even been created if Armando Galarraga's Wikipedia page had not been full protected by an overzealous admin. All the information that is in this near-perfect game article never had a chance to be included in Galarraga's own article. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per encyclopedic value. Also, (and I'm just being a baseball fan here) this is bigger than any perfect game (even though it's not one) in recent memory. However, that has very little to do with my point. But it does offer the chance at significant coverage. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. We'll all feel stupid if we don't\. No question this is a game that will be talked and read about for decades to come, and it doesn't make sense just to leave it with a paragraph in the perfect-games article Thmazing (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This game will, and already has, had a significant effect on the history of baseball. Domz (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Arguments about whether this counts as a perfect game and whether not counting it as a perfect game is grounds for exclusion miss the point - that the game is plainly enormously notable, like The Play or the Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final). Both of those occurred before there was a Wikipedia, but both were obviously matters of note just as quickly as this has become one. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment in a few months it will be deleted, no worries. Prodego  talk  04:05, 6 June 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.