Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden sombrero


 * 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. W.marsh 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Golden sombrero

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I realize it's bad form to just quote policy, but I can think of no better argument for deleting this article than: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." -Groupthink 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd normally agree with you but this seems to have some significance referred to in the second paragraph. If it were simply "a golden sombrero is X", I'd say delete it, but as it stands now, it is probably verifiable and encyclopedic (though barely). - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  09:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if sourced It appears that the term is in use among sportswriters. On the hunt for more sources. DarkAudit 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some sources. The Rocky Mountain News cites Dickinson Baseball Dictionary, but the only ghit for that was the Rocky Mountain News article itself. It's not listed at amazon, either. DarkAudit 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if better sourced and trimmed. This is why I hate baseball, they are consummate statistics fanatics and seem to have records for every imaginable statistic.  The list of players who have "acheived" this feat seems unecessary as well.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The list of players who have "acheived" this feat seems unecessary as well." - especially since it is the list of players not who have achieved the "feat" described in the article title, but indeed gone one better (worse?) - fchd 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While there's no doubt that term is actually used, I don't think it passes WP:NEO. To quote the policy, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.. While one of the links comes close, it's a brief bit in a larger article and doesn't show that the term is notable beyond a certain people. Ytny (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering that players like Don Baylor were using the term ten or twenty years ago, I would submit that the phrase is old enough to not really be a neologism. DarkAudit 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede that neologism is the wrong descriptor but I still question whether it meets the notability criteria and the argument against using non-notable neologism applies to this not-neologism. Again, I'm not questioning whether the term is in use. The question is whether the term and the concept are important enough for an encyclopedia article. While it may be an established term among baseball players and writers, what importance does it have for people who aren't involved in baseball? And as Ksy92003 points out, the article is nothing more than the definition and players who have "achieved" the feat, and I can't imagine it'll expand beyond that. Ytny (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known term in baseball, and decidedly not a neologism. Corvus cornix 23:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is simply a definition followed by a list to demonstrate how often the feat has occured.  Even more of a reason for deletion is it isn't an official term.  It's not a term officially regonized my Major League Baseball.  It's baseball lingo around the baseball community, but it isn't an officially recognized term by league offices.  Therefore, I don't think it deserves article space on Wikipedia.
 * Secondly, the bulk of the article is a list of players who have achieved this "feat." Not only are lists not appropriate in mainspace (this is what categories are for), but why is Bert Blyleven on the list?  He's a pitcher, and pitchers most likely won't achieve a hitting accomplishment like this.  --Ksy92003 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blyleven is on the list for the same reason as Lefty Grove--because he did accomplish the feat. And back before the advent of the DH and the demise of the complete game, I expect that pitchers would be more likely to do it.
 * And who cares if it's an official term? Is WP supposed to be subservient to Bud Selig's whims?  Unofficial terms in many fields have legitimate articles here. Matchups 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that Grand slam (baseball) should be an AfD for the same reason. For a grand slam, what can you say?  The only thing I can think of for the entire article is "A grand slam in baseball occurs when a batter hits a home run when there is a baserunner on first, second, and third base."  What else can you say about a grand slam?  That article consists of a definition and statistics.  Such statistics include the following:
 * "In the 2005 major league season, grand slams accounted for 132 of the 5017 total home runs hit (2.6 %)."
 * The difference is notoriety and context. Firstly, "Grand Slam" is a far more well-known term.  9 out of 10 average citizens could tell you that a "Grand Slam" is a remarkable baseball play, even if they couldn't describe exactly what it was.  Secondly, "Grand Slam" can be and has been used as a sports analogy in a non-baseball context (e.g., "I'd say not only did he knock it out of the park with that speech; he hit a grand slam."  Neither of these applies to "Golden sombrero"; no one outside of baseball has used the term nor knows wtf it means. Groupthink 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which describes an event, object, etc. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, which unfortunately is what the Grand Slam article is, minus some statistics.  Now, let's look at the "Golden Sombrero."
 * What can you say for a Golden sombrero? The only thing I could say is "'Golden sombrero' is a baseball term slang for the occurrence of a batter striking out [X many] times in a single game."  There isn't any background for the terminology, there isn't any secondary source or any source of any sort to give any support for any information related to the terminology.  What else can be said about this?  --Ksy92003 04:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - If the article was just the definition of the term, then I could see the case for deleting it. However, the article goes into more detail and describes the origin of the term and identifies the individual players that "accomplished" the feat.  Because of that, I put this article on par with Hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters.  I definitely think those articles, and this article, belong on wikipedia.  X96lee15 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - But hitting for the cycle and no-hitters are significant accomplishments that receive substantial coverage and even casual baseball fans are aware of. The golden sombrero is a statistical footnote that has little cache beyond baseball insiders and experts. I think a better comparison is the Mendoza Line, but at least that term is used outside of baseball. --Ytny (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that only baseball insiders and experts would cache info on the G.S., but it also has little cachet too. ;-) Groupthink 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has information well beyond a dictionary and well suited for an article. Current lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion.  If you could show that sourcing were impossible, then deletion would be reasonable.  Here's an RS that might help from the Sporting News. Matchups 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition component of the article is well within the scope of a dictionary or slang/jargon/usage guide. The rest of the article, as mentioned above, is a mere stat listing.  This isn't a sourcing problem, it's a worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia problem. Groupthink 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary?
Look, it's not that I dislike America's pasttime, but why does GS have to be a Wikipedia article? Why can't everything that's in this article be merged with the Wiktionary entry, where IMHO it belongs? Groupthink 07:10, 24 May 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.