Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball team names


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball team names

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable topic, appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely not useful -- it's hard to tell what the article is trying to do. Also, the layout of the article makes no sense, at least to me. This is another example of where we need a ruleset for the inclusion of lists into Wikipedia... GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the work being put into this, but it's a bad idea. While I appreciate the intent, I don't see the need for an article or a table that explains that the Connecticut Tigers, Detroit Tigers, Lakeland Flying Tigers are named after a tiger, or that a tiger is an animal.  Some athletic nicknames, like the San Diego Padres or the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, might need an explanation (usually given in the article about the team itself).  Most of the teams in organized baseball (and there are hundreds in the minor leagues, as well as 30 in MLB) have names that need no explaining at all. Most of us have had the experience of putting together a table and then finding that it didn't display as it we had envisioned, after which we have to do more work to fix it.  Even with it fixed, I can't see how one could overcome the problem that it's all original synthesis.   Mandsford 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article offers a comparative presentation of baseball team names. While I agree that the article is an indiscriminate list, statements regarding usefulness or need are subjective. What may not be useful or needful for one individual may be useful to another. It may not interest me personally, but it may be of interest to others. If kept, the layout needs extensive revision. Cindamuse (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there's potential for a really fantastic article at this title, maybe explaining the history of baseball team names, how they've changed over the years (I doubt we'll be seeing another team called the Black Crackers, Zulu Cannibal Giants, or Rugmakers anytime soon) and how foreign team names relate to US ones. But this is a poorly-formated table that just states the obvious. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the formatting so that the article can now be more accurately evaluated. (Note to table creators: "rowspan=5" on every row of a table is not necessarily a good idea.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Explanation of names are better left to the articles of the teams. I agree with Andrew, however, when he says that "there's potential for a really fantastic article". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Like the others above have said, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list that doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedia. It's pretty clear that the St. Louis Cardinals and Toronto Blue Jays are named after birds, for example. If this was an actual article that discussed how and why teams have gotten their nicknames as time has gone on, that might be another story, and I'm apparently not alone in thinking that.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify Turn it into List of Professional Baseball Teams or something likewise that is discriminate and can salvage this. I agree this is not article worthy. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:18, 6 August 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.