Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run


 * 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 merge to Barry Bonds. Redirecting for now, as your humble European servant has no clue about this sport, and the merger should be done by someone who does. Sandstein 06:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Barry Bonds 714th home run

 * — (View AfD)

Is the news about a guy catching a home run really that notable? docking man talk 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, can never be anything more than a stub. I assume the information is already in Bonds' article. - Che Nuevara  19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * not who caught ball. not value of ball. 72.36.251.234 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Has multiple independent non-trivial mentions. the 5-6 indipindent non-trivial mentions Tony Pierce has is enough to keep him around, so why not the 100s of indipindant non-trivial mentions this has??? 72.36.251.234 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I kind of dislike it when people wave around lack of sources as the only deletion reason. But this article shows the exact opposite: Just because some fact is well sourced, it doesn't mean it can be included. (It can be included if it's relevant.) And it certainly doesn't mean it should be created as an article of its own. This article has relevant, sourced facts, yes, but creating an individual article about the facts is completely needless. This is merge material at best, and if the article on the players involved already has the material, then it's delete material at worst. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Barry Bonds. --EEMeltonIV 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bary Bonds as this home run is part of his career. -- Whpq 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Barry Bonds. This could be a small subsection, while notable, does not diserve own article.Cnriaczoy42 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. If the value of the ball and the guy who caught it are that damn important, put a single sentence in Bonds's article. Otherwise, there isn't even anything worth merging. I can't even imagine an article on his 756th homer, which (assuming it happens, and I truly hope it does not) would make him the MLB's all-time leader, much less an article on the homer that tied him for second. -- Kicking222 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Mstroeck make good point. We have featured articles about individual Pokémons, for God's sake. There is zero reason to request deletion of this article. Capital letter Notability is not a de-facto requirement for Wikipedia, and hasn't been for quite a while. If it's interesting, it's here. 72.36.251.234 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, whether an article is featured or not makes no difference. Second of all, there has been much talk about this "Pokemon" defense, and I'm sorry to say that it fails. Even the most obscure Pokemon are still known by millions of people and featured in television shows, films, and video games. I love baseball, but not enough to say that an article on a single home run with no sociocultural impact is necessary. -- Kicking222 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears you don't know the primary reason why AfD exists: we're here to determine whether or not the article's subject warrants an article of its own. There's every reason to bring the article to AfD if there's a doubt that it doesn't; every editor who's familiar with what material Wikipedia tends to keep would take one look at the article and think "should this be deleted or merged?"... the nominator went "I'm kind of leaning toward delete, let's ask what others say." Pretty much no one would think that this has potential as a stand-alone article; it's merge or bust. Finally, if you're in a wikilawyering mood about this article, remember we're to ignore all rules (and, by corollary, use common sense) when faced with situation like this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Barry Bonds per above. We do not need an article about the home run which beats the record, which he appears to be making. He's up to 733, so if keepers' logic holds, that'll be 19 home runs potentially worth an article. Ohconfucius 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. *sigh* --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mergewith Barry Bonds. --Optichan 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per everyone else's argument. I don't see how this article could ever become anything bigger than a stub. 04:38, 10 December 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.