Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball


 * 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   keep for now, but move to Portal:Baseball as suggested below. There's little consensus in this AfD, but the information would be far better organised and accessed from the baseball portal that sitting randomly about in articlespace. Black Kite 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

February 7 in baseball

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

WP:NOTDIR: this is "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", there is no reason why a certain day in baseball is notable (baseball is notable, a day is notable in a way, but the combination isn't. That someone was born on day X in 1893 and someone else died on the same day in 1974 is completely irrelevant and has not received widespread attention, there is no actual link between the two events except the double coincidence of baseball plus day. I'll also nominate all other day in baseball articles in this AfD, the reason is the same for all of them of course. Fram (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also nominated: February 7 in baseball, February 8 in baseball, February 9 in baseball, February 10 in baseball, February 11 in baseball, February 12 in baseball, February 13 in baseball, February 14 in baseball, February 15 in baseball, February 16 in baseball, February 17 in baseball, February 18 in baseball, February 19 in baseball, February 20 in baseball, February 21 in baseball, February 22 in baseball, February 23 in baseball, February 24 in baseball, February 25 in baseball, February 26 in baseball, February 27 in baseball, February 28 in baseball, February 29 in baseball

March 1 in baseball, March 2 in baseball, March 3 in baseball, March 4 in baseball, March 5 in baseball, March 6 in baseball, March 7 in baseball, March 8 in baseball, March 9 in baseball, March 10 in baseball, March 11 in baseball, March 12 in baseball, March 13 in baseball, March 14 in baseball, March 15 in baseball, March 16 in baseball, March 17 in baseball, March 18 in baseball, March 19 in baseball, March 20 in baseball, March 21 in baseball, March 22 in baseball, March 23 in baseball, March 24 in baseball, March 25 in baseball, March 26 in baseball, March 27 in baseball, March 28 in baseball, March 29 in baseball, March 30 in baseball, March 31 in baseball

April 1 in baseball, April 2 in baseball, April 3 in baseball, April 4 in baseball, April 5 in baseball, April 6 in baseball, April 7 in baseball, April 8 in baseball, April 9 in baseball, April 10 in baseball, April 11 in baseball, April 12 in baseball, April 13 in baseball, April 14 in baseball, April 15 in baseball, April 16 in baseball, April 17 in baseball, April 18 in baseball, April 19 in baseball, April 20 in baseball

And if someone wonders, as far as I can tell, we have no similar articles for other "in X" categories in the mainspace (many in portals, but that is something different of course). Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, I added April 18-20 to the above list as they were created after the discussion began. Tavix : Chat  21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The people at WikiProject Days of the year have made it very clear that there should be very strict definitions of what can go on to the Days of the year articles. Events that are specific only to Canada, for example, are removed from those articles because they aren't worldly enough. It only makes sense that we have other types of Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in Canada, and Days of the year in baseball. There is nothing wrong with other projects and portals having their own Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in film, Days of the year in theatre, Days of the year in hockey. If people are willing to put in the work, then these articles should stay. They serve a purpose, they are of interest. They are encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh? Is this an April Fools Day joke? Kingturtle (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty serious. Any indication why a random linking of day X with activity Y, regardless of the year, is "encyclopedic" instead of a clear violation of WP:NOT? Fram (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are all baseball related, then it is not random. Kingturtle (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The linking of baseball with day X is random. People with two I's in their surname in baseball would be also a random joining of two characteristics. This is a collection of trivia, amusing or interesting for some perhaps, but not a topic of research or discussion in reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles are no less or more random than the Days of the year articles. Give the Days of the year in baseball articles some time. It is going to take some work obviously to get these articles tip-top, but you have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way will they be improved so that they are no longer non-encyclopedic crosscategorizations? I don't care about other articles, perhaps these have to go as well, but that is a different discussion. But these ones: the problem is not the current state, but the starting point, the definition, the subject: such pages can never be encyclopedic and acceptable (if there is a day that has a special meaning for a subject, like e.g. a number of events always happening on the same date, then that can be an encyclopedic subject, because in that case, the coupling of day and topic is no longer meaningless: however, I have seen no evidence that any of these dates has such a relationship to baseball, never mind all of them). Fram (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It seems too random a collection of info to be an article/list. I don't see any policies that defend it; I put little faith in the Days of the year WikiProject's views because it is not official. Anyone could start the Un-notable topics WikiProject, that doesn't mean it's right. The info itself is all very good and would fit right in at a baseball wiki, but it's too trivial for Wikipedia. If topics are notable enough they can go on the main day of the year article, but I don't see a benifit to having "This day in baseball, basketball, cross-country skiing, masonry history". A This day in sports series would be more appropriate, but only baseball is too specific.  black ngold29  14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep. I'm not clear on why February 7 is notable, while February 7 in baseball is not because it focuses on baseball. Nor am I clear on why a year is more notable than a day - 1952 in country music, 1978 in motoring, 1920 in film, etc. It seems that people find it useful to have these facts together for research purposes. There are a number of journalist and special interest diaries published which give information on what occured on a given day. I can see some cause for concern that this might be an intersection too far, though I can also see the value of this work, and see how it fits in with existing work being done on Wikipedia. If these baseball articles contained very little information, I could see a valid question of doing them by day rather than year, but they do seem to contain a lot of information which links to existing Wikipedia articles. I'm still pondering on this, but I don't see it as a straight delete.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it just seems to be a copy of this. So the information is already out there.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IT is not simply a copy of the other site. I am not using their information verbatim. I am changing content, editing content, and removing content from their information. I am trying to get all 366 dates up onto Wikipedia so that the Baseball Project Community here can make it their own. But we have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be quite a few date articles on Wikipedia which focus down in varying degrees on either the topic or the date or both, such as June 2004 in sports. My concern now is if this particular article meets the main content polices: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. As they are simple lists presented without opinion, they meet neutral point of view. And as they reproduce material already published elsewhere on baseball-reference.com then the information is not original research, and it is verifiable. I'd like to see a greater range of reliable sources used to support the information, but all in all, these articles meet our core policies, and are in the tradition of Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the notability of simple date articles like February 7, and I would prefer if we kept that out of this discussion (but I have no real say in that of course). But the difference between an article on Day X in Baseball vs. Year X in Baseball is taht the total of the second group gives a chronological ordering, where evolutions and so on may be visible (in the best case), and where there may be a definite link between different events (but the births and deaths are mostly not relevant either): no evolution or other information can be gathered from the grouping of events, births or deaths per day though, no matter how notable individual events may be of course. To give a completely fictional example, if year in baseball articles made it possible to note that the first Afro-American player started in 1920, and the first Native American in 1942, then this may lead to at least some conclusions. But the fact that the first Afro-American was born on April 20th, while the first Native American was born on September 7, is utterly irrelevant (for a general list, it is relevant in their personal biographies of course).Fram (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm aware this is an argument to avoid, per WP:NOHARM, but I really do feel that these lists aren't doing any harm to the encyclopaedia. In fact, if we had the time and resources, I'd support doing a February 7 in [insert here] . As SilkTork mentions, if we can't have this, why do we have February 7 at all? If someone has the time to create these sorts of lists, I'm behind that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is my opinion on why we have a "February 7" and shouldn't have a "February 7 in Baseball". The February 7 article provides encyclopedic information about "February 7" (the day). The "February 7 in Baseball" is an anniversary list of trivia related "facts" about who did what on that day. While the information may be notable, the fact that they happened on February 7 isn't. Tavix (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete asper nom and also WP:DIRECTORY Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see WP:NOTDIR as applicable in this case, and it's a sensible spinoff from the articles on specific dates. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think many people would want to see Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport as an applicable predicent for this AfD. The only thing in common between the dates is certain annual events that are found elsewhere such as the All star game, the World Series, and Opening Day. Everything else is redundant trivial information. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How trivial can the information be if it's mentioned in numerous reliable sources? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When something is "trivial" it means it is basically a list of trivia. The information might be, but the fact that they are all on Feburary is just trivia. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * April 5 in baseball is no more or less trivial than April 5. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But where do you draw the line? Are April 5 in Wikipedia history trivial, or April 5 in Middle-earth history, or April 5 in television history notable, or April 5 in pickle packaging history? There has to be some guideline.  black ngold29  14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking Major League Baseball here. It's been around for 130 years. It has a long history of accomplishments, trades, milestones reached, World Series results. As for Days of the year in television, that actually sounds like a great idea - if someone were to put the time into it. You could list birth and death dates, dates of show premieres, dates networks formed or folded. I don't see anything wrong in having Days of the year in Canada either. Many events of importance to Canadian history are not allowed on the Days of the year articles because they are not internationally significant, which is what the Days of the year group has decided for their criteria there. Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, where is the line drawn? What makes Canada, TV, and baseball notable? Howabout This day in the life of Stephen King, Mister Rogers, Babe Ruth? Those are all notable topics aren't they? It could build and build and suddenly it's a On this day in X history wiki (that's not a bad idead actually, for another site).  black ngold29  15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're equating the history of Canada with Mister Rogers? Kingturtle (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So if Mr. Rogers isn't notable, what line does he fail to cross that Canada does?  black ngold29  15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see, Canada is a sovereign nation with 300 years of history. Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Television has 60 years of history, has changed culture, politics and society. Fred Rogers is a person who was not a nation, had little international significance, and did not have a dozen significant events take place every day of the year. Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rogers produced a show for children for over 30 years, he's likely got more honors and awards than anyone else in his field, he's been recognized by the US House, Senate, and President. So if that's not enough to make someone notable for a Day in the Life series, than there probably aren't any people notable enough for it. Now that that's settled, I still haven't gotten a specific statement of what makes things notable. The History of rail transport has a 500 year history, would a This day in the history of rail transport series be feasible? lol, oops. I guess so. Anyway, here's what I see so far as your criteria: History of a number of years, international significance, changed politics, culture, or society. So that would be pretty much every country, many large companies, and every major sport. That's a lot of articles (or lists, not sure which). Do those criteria sound right?  black ngold29  16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why each nation shouldn't have its own Day of the year articles. You may not be privy to the conversations going on at WikiProject Days of the year, but they've made it quite clear that if an event doesn't have international significance, then they won't include it. Because of that argument, it's only natural that sub-groups are created. I see nothing wrong with Days of the year in Canada. That would be only 366 articles, not a lot. If there is enough information and interest to create such things, there should be Days of the week in and Days of the week in . This is an enyclopedia, a place where information can be presented in different formats. Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where we disagree. I see 366 articles that have no real goal (I can't see them being FLs, GAs, or FAs) as quite a lot of articles. And I already noted earlier that what any WikiProject has to say is meaningless when compared to policies.  black ngold29  01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A great many articles will never become FLs, GAs or FAs. That is not an argument not to have them. With your stance, the article February 4 has no merit existing on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't my stance, I have no problem with articles that can't be GAs etc., however, I think that there should be something to work toward. I've worked on Slipknot Demo and it's apparent that with the current info people won't let it become a GA, but there is a chance that more info will come to light and it will be able to be improved. I don't see that poetential with these articles. There's no prose, no citations, virtually no self-containment. What's the goal? Collecting this info with no third party cites that have already connected it is WP:OR in itself.  black ngold29  01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List of cities ending on A, ending on B, ... It's a different format, it are only 26 articles compared to the massive 366, it has perfectly clear inclusion criteria... What's the difference between my ridiculous example and your date in Baseball ones? Fram (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Kingturtle (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So baseball is more important than cities? Please try again, Kingturtle, you are not adressing the issue at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "List of cities ending on A,..." is a legitimate example of a non-encyclopedic cross-classification. Encyclopedic articles follow other sources in how they organize information. Organizing historical information by date is a clear example of an encyclopedic topic because it is an approach that is routinely used by other publications, Web sites, and sources of information. An obvious example is Wikipedia's own Main page, but information is also organized by date on many other sites and publications (for example,, , ), and even on sites for baseball history . This type of information can be useful—for example, sportswriters often refer to events that happened on "this date" in history, and these Wikipedia articles could provide them with that information.  (For an example, see the bottom of this article .) BRMo (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Borgarde (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete these are a horrible precedent; we can now have 366 more articles from each article we have. February 7 in football, February 7 in aviation, February 7 in virology, February 7 in astronomy, February 7 in Paducah, Kentucky, February 7 in medicine, February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior, February 7 in South Park, February 7 in ufology, and thousands (2.8 million?) more and 365 others for each of those for Jan 1 thru Dec 31. No, thanks, but we could have our one billionth article later this month that way ;-) . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you can't be serious that you're equating Canada with Sammy Davis Junior. Kingturtle (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Carlossuarez46 - "Setting a precedent" is not really a problem, since per WP:OTHERSTUFF, if these articles are kept, that doesn't preclude deleting other "February 7 in X" articles. So the notability of "February 7 in baseball" is decided independently of "February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior".  In my opinion, you haven't given a valid reason for deletion.  — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. When Wikipedia devotes about 10 percent of its main page to "On this day...", I don't see how it can be argued that articles organizing information by date are "non-encyclopedic" or non-notable.  Encylopedia's are about organizing, synthesizing, and presenting information, and this is one way to do it. The information is verifiable; there are no issues of original research or non-neutral POV; these articles fully meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the policy WP:NOT cited in the nomination? The main page is used to invite people in, and to present a wide variety of subjects so that it will interest the largest possible group. The main page is not an article but a portal, and as stated, I have no problems with "on this day" articles on portals. But as an article, they fail misearbly, because the subject is non-encyclopedic: the pairing of two encyclopedic things does not automatically create a new encyclopedic subject, but in many cases (like these) a collection of unrelated facts. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. If dates are encyclopedic for history in general, there is no reason they shouldn't be encyclopedic for specific topics that have a history, including sports and even baseball. And I don't buy your distinction between articles and portals either.  The main page links to three date articles.  An encyclopedia should be about compiling and organizing verifiable knowledge, not deleting it.   BRMo (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No information will be deleted if these pages get deleted, only one method of presenting it will be deleted. I have still not gotten one good reason why baseball related things that happened on the same day in different years are somehow related. What is the link between the birth of a baseball player in 1924 and one in 1949 on January 3, which separates them from someone born on January 4? Are they better players? More likely to become MVPs? Homerun hitters? Greeneyed? Taller? Or does, perhaps, the day of their births have no meaning at all? I am all for presenting information in meaningful formats: list of players per team or per year of birth (since their careers will have roughly coincided and they will have competed one another) may be perfectly relevant. But not one person wanting to keep these articles has given one reason why the day they were born, died, ... is in any way relevant as a method of grouping.Fram (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Because a lot of people (though apparently, not you) are interested in knowing what happened on a particular date, especially on the anniversary of an event.  That's why dates are continuously featured on Wikipedia's Main page, why books like A Dictionary of Dates are published, and why newspapers and news shows frequently mention events occurring on that day or various notable anniversaries or birthdays.  No, it's not science and no one will ever get a PhD for compiling a list of dates. But organizing events by date it is a part of human knowledge and is useful for satisfying people's curiosity, and thus it's within the scope of Wikipedia. I haven't contributed to compiling these lists myself, and it's not really the kind of editing I like doing. But we have an editor who wants to do this work and I appreciate and can use the results. BRMo (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these pages should be moved to subpages of Portal:Baseball. I see "on this day" pages as collections of only very mildly linked topics, more useful for highlighting of specific events than true encyclopedic usefulness. If the baseball portal isn't interested in hosting these pages and linking to them, delete. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. When you think about it, it really is going overboard with specifics where we don't need them. Wizardman  13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate pages for browsing, whichis oen of the functions of an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - In this case, a bundled nomination is not very productive. Each article should be evaluated separately to decide if enough happened on that day to justify a navigational article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP:NOT. I can live with generic date articles, but having date articles by subject is just a can of worms. Sourcing? Weight? NPOV? WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Multiplying essentially pointless non-encyclopedic articles is just an invitation to look silly. If we're happy with February 7 in baseball, why not February 7 in Angels on the Head of a Pin Debate? There must be baseball websites for this sort of thing. WP:NOT Everything We Can Think Of That Can Theoretically Be Sourced (But Actually Isn't And Probably Never Will Be). Rd232 talk 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Each Days of the year in  would be judged on its own merit and value. By allowing this one, you are not giving a blanket approval to all future Days of the year topics. Baseball has a long history, is an international game. And for the record, nothing on March 7 is sourced, so why should everything on March 7 in baseball be sourced. That's why we have wikilinks. You want confirmation that Pud Galvin was born on March 7, then click on his name, and the Pud Galvin will source it. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway sourcing aside it's still a bad idea both in general and for baseball. WP:NOT a baseball stat/trivia website. Rd232 talk 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These Days of the year articles are simply another way of organizing information that already exists on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What it is doing is taking barely connected information and putting it into an article for trivia purposes. The only thing in common for most of these is the fact that they are baseball related and take place on a certain day. We already have all of this information in other places where it is encyclopedic, properly sources, and non-trivial. Tavix | Talk  02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all. List of events for each day of the year are considered encyclopedic enough for the main page, and baseball has its own portal (Portal:Baseball), which I think is a decent enough criteria for inclusion of such lists of events (and to avoid a slippery slope feared by some people here). We happen to have an editor willing to do the work here, trees are safe since Wikipedia is not made of paper, as for the main objection, I don't consider arranging events chronologically (modulo one year) a form of cross categorization. Reading various comments above, I also have to point out here that pages such as February 7 are mere lists of events, only select entries such as January 1 are the subject of an actual article. Equendil Talk 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Portal:Baseball. Create a "This Day in Baseball" series on the Baseball Portal, I think it's more appropriate. It could be a seperate tab at the top of the page that goes to a page like Portal:Baseball/March 1. Borgarde (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea.  black ngold29  03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Tavix's delete !vote halfway up the page referenced another Afd — Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport — as a possible precedent for this discussion, and I'd agree. It's worth noting, however, that the result of that discussion was a No consensus, a decision that was also affirmed at DRV. Both those discussions were valuable, though, as they kick-started a discussion at the Trains project about how to better maintain the information in the Portal space. To date, 4 1/2 of the 12 months worth of articles have been repurposed into Portal space. In that regard, I think that's an excellent model for how to resolve this issue. Keep these articles for now, and let the Baseball project undertake a systematic move of the content to that project's Portal space, without the time pressure associated with a deletion discussion. Mlaffs (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Simply ridiculous! GiantSnowman 02:22, 10 April 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.