Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds home run watch


 * 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. If you want to keep track of Barry's progress, the article's creator is keeping an updated, userfied version at User:TonyTheTiger/Barry Bonds home run watch. &mdash; Caknuck 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds home run watch
Article is nothing more than an overly detailed list of statistics that is not going to be of encyclopedic interest to anybody in two month, little yet in two years. Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and we ought not be recording every minute of this. Phil Sandifer 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions.   —Truest blue 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Oddly, baseball fans love statistics and view the availability of more stats as a plus (and encyclopedic). They will view this page as useful information that they want to know and have at their fingertips.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a play-by-play record of every game Bonds appears in as he ties and beats a record? Phil Sandifer 13:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. I'm a baseball fanatic and a stat-head, but this is just not encyclopedic. --Fabrictramp 14:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Waaay too newsy and now-ist of a subject. An at-bat by at-bat account is far too detailed.  Wikipedia is not Retrosheet. Also, this information is already at baseball fans' "fingertips" - what sports news site doesn't have this plastered all over their front page?  Wickethewok 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This info is not available anywhere else in a unified format like this to my knowledge.
 * Delete wikipedia isn't a stats alamac, wikinews is the better place for this article. Jaranda wat's sup 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete also as per nom. This realy contributes little to nothing at all to the project and there are probably hundreds of webpages with this info.  Plus alot of people write this stuff down or memorize it.-- Kk  r  ou  ni  16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: In violation of WP:NOT Chris! my talk 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the Elias Sports Bureau. Realkyhick 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Well-intentioned creation, but better as a short paragraph on the Barry Bonds page. However, considering the creator was the primary editor, effort to discuss this with him should have been made first, and he might have willingly merged the article today. Now we have to wait up to a week to get rid of it. - BillCJ 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Seems to be a collection of random information; additionally, it is EXTREMELY unimportant to list every single at-bat. You might as well go as extremely as saying that every home run from #1-#754 are a part of this watch... what, are you gonna list every single plate appearance since his ML debut?  It's not an important event; it isn't any special event that has any additional importance from any of his other home runs.  I can't believe it's an article to begin with.  Wikipedia isn't the place for play-by-play information.  But the MAIN REASON is that this article is crystal-balling.  The article states, "...a comprehensive list of plate appearances made by Barry Bonds between his 754th and 756th career home runs..."  He might not hit home runs number 755 and 756, so this is crystal-balling.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply When the tell you there is a 95% chance of rain do you leave your umbrella at home and go back to get it when it rains.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything. Can you prove that Barry Bonds will hit one or two more home runs?  After all, Jason Tyner of the Minnesota Twins went 1,220 at-bats career before hitting his first MLB home run in the past week.  Who is to say that Barry Bonds won't have a similar stretch?  You can't guarantee that Bonds will ever tie/pass the record.
 * As far as your "rain/umbrella" comparison goes, that itself is a weak comparison because even a 95% chance of rain doesn't mean that it will rain. Nothing is 100% sure to happen unless it's 100%.  If there is a 95% chance of it raining, there is still a chance (5%) that it won't rain.  Long explanation short: can you prove that Bonds will hit another homerun, TtT?  Ksy92003  (talk)  06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you would support the page if I prove he hit 755 and 756 (I.E., after he does so).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No... the event still isn't any more notable than Alex Rodriguez home run watch would be. I'm not sure if you understand that this is Wikipedia, not WikiNews, and that there shouldn't be an article documenting an event that will no longer mean anything when/if he does pass the record.  This isn't worth anything more than Miguel Tejada's consecutive game streak watch.  Even if it is something that baseball fans are interested in, you can't tell me it's something you'll find in an encyclopedia.  Remember: we are an encyclopedia, not WikiNews or ESPN.  Our job is to provide accurate information about things that have happened or that will happen, not to provide statistics about something leading up to an event that isn't even guaranteed to occur.  And as far as after the record is broken, if it is, this article won't really mean anything any more.  I'm not denying that the chase is something that means nothing to baseball fans such as myself, but it's hardly something that could be called encyclopedic information.  The article, in its present state, consists of nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of numbers, something which is to be avoided at all costs per WP:NOT.  Ksy92003  (talk)  06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. Clearly doesn't meet the criteria for own page.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic. Some of this bears mentioning in Barry Bonds, but not in anywhere near this level of detail. I agree with BillCJ that this should have been discussed with TonyTheTiger before going the AfD route, but what's done is done. --Sanfranman59 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wow, are you freakin kidding me? This is very non-notable. If you want this, then keep on your word document at home. Soxrock 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well the people have spoken. "Let them eat cake".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This has no encyclopedic value, and is really just a non-discriminitive list of information, that won't even be useful when/if Bonds hit 756. Actually, the list isn't really useful right now to begin with. Bjewiki 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not much longer until he hits 756. Wake me up when that happens.  Mandsford 00:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Have to agree with nominator as well. Xtreme racer 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Truest blue 06:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Look, I actually like the list, but for Wikipedia, this is not encyclopedic. Soxrock 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This an encyclopedia not a sports almanac. IvoShandor 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I enjoy the stat keeping and it pleases my inner baseball nerd, wikipedia doesn't need more listcruft. I would hope that someone would save this somewhere for future use and continued addition.Ravenmasterq 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS PAGE HAS BEEN USERFIED Closing admin may want to note such. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Userfication doesn't preclude it from deletion. User space is mainly for use in improving the encyclopedia, unless I am mistaken. Also, should the AfD tag have been removed from the page, even if it was userfied. I still say delete because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. IvoShandor 18:35, 3 August 2007 (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.