Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft round values


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft round values

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a game, can't quite work out what it is though! Doesn't seem notable or encyclopaedic. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa. A lot of work went into this, but I'll be doggoned if I can figure out what it is.  There's a copyright in the edit history, so it may well be a copyvio.  Of something.  Not sure what.  Delete as non-encyclopedic, but if it's not a copyvio, it may be a candidate for a transwiki to Wikisource.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say its almost definitely a copy and paste from somewhere, judging from the spacing that was in the article (which the author is now trying to sort out). I can't find out if its a copyvio though, Google is no help here Jenuk1985  |  Talk  08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - have nommed for speedy as db-nocontext; also the copyvio issues. // roux   08:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)   removed speedy due to comments on the article talkpage, now !voting for deletion // roux    09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NFT. // roux   09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Haworth, If you are the one who ultimately decides the fate of this article, I ask that you hold off it's deletion until it would be the article that puts you over the hump and into the top 10 for most articles deleted by admins., I see you are at #11 right now and I am willing to concede my argument if it's for a noble cause. It would be a shame if all of my hard work died in vein, so I ask for you to give it an honorable death and make it seem as if my time wasn't spent for nothing.  I've done all that I could to salvage this piece of work, but I'm afraid all the biting has gotten to me and has rendered me apathetic.  I don't know, maybe if it's still alive in a week I'll try to improve my referencing, but then again who knows, I may be busy authoring the Theory of Relativity.Elektro28 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The copyright symbol was done originally as a joke, I forgot to remove it before I transfered this from a word document. This is essentially Pythagorean expectation, a form of Sabermetrics applied to Fantasy Sports.  I will be citing these and others as soon and as much as I can as I finalize my contribution and you're right, alot of work did go into this. Elektro28 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but it doesn't matter how much work went into it. What matters is that the work is original research, which isn't allowed. // roux   17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "How much work went into it" was not intended to be taken as an argument for the articles sake, it simply was a response to a statement above. With that being said, I'm still unclear on why in the world you think this is "original research", it clearly is a detailed example of a system that was put in place by the famous author and Baseball analyst Bill James.  Sabermetrics has been around since the 70's and you really don't know how big of a compliment you are giving me if you think I invented it one day in my basement.  I just merely took the existing concept, plugged in values to the equation, and filled in the corresponding values to the table provided.  Basically, I have just simplified that which had already existed by plugging in numbers and organizing the end results.

Taken from No original research

Under the subcategory "Synthesis of published material which advances a position"

"The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age), or restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources."

Thank you, Elektro28 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But you just admitted created the concept yourself, WP:NEO applies than, and notabilty guidelines, also that part of a guideline is meant for general lists, not this. Delete Secret account 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Vote struck by // roux    06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC); you only get one vote in an AFD The equations already existed, the "concept" I developed was to simplify their function by plugging values in and providing easy to read tables. I ask that all comments going forward on this article be withheld unless you could be considered at least moderately knowledgeable on the topic of Sabermetrics. I fear that not many people are familiar with this form of mathematics and are quick to pull the trigger on it before fully understanding it's purpose. Sabermetric equations have been around since 1976. I am 26. Do the math. Elektro28 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys, is this whole "delete" thing like a game to some of you or something. I mean I have literally gone to some of your user pages and found "stats" for how many articles you've assisted in deleting.  7 minutes!  That's how long after I created the page that it was nominated for deletion, I had barely even begun formatting the tables and hadn't even finished the introduction, 7 minutes!  This really isn't fair to me or any other user trying to make a notable contribution and eventually I hope you can come to understand this.  Elektro28 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I can understand what it's about, even though I do wonder if anyone watches baseball or American football without a stopwatch and a scientific calculator. This is as valid to me as any of the sport statistical articles. (Bin the lot...) Are fantasy sports notable? I suppose if a lot of people are involved they must be. Are all these sports statistics necessary? Judging by the number of questions on them at one of my other internet homes, they must be - to some people at least. (Yawn....) I said I could understand what it was about. True. I can't understand it, though. Just as I can't see the point of American football (or Bach cantatas...). Peridon (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (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.