Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Roberto Clemente


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Legacy of Roberto Clemente

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Setting aside no other baseball player (or athlete) has a seperate page for their legacy (since it can easily be fitted into their main articles), majority of this page a list of quotes praising (and some ONLY mentioning) Clemente and a list of books on Clemente which are already cited in the main article. I admire Clemente as much as anyone can but this page is unnecessary and almost certainly violates WP:NPOV since it seems to be made by a fan and WP:POVFORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnis Scientia (talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball,  and Puerto Rico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment There may be policy-based reasons to delete the article, but no other baseball player having a legacy article (there can be a first if enough RS-based content is there), or a fan maybe writing this article (we shouldn't judge motivation per WP:AGF), aren't among them. Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @StefenTower, not judging motive, just that it has little to do with the legacy of Clemente, and most of this stuff is already present on his main page or Wikiquote page. I should clarify: I believe it violates WP:NPOV because it is very one-sided, not because it was made by a Clemente fan. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NPOV is a policy you can use here, of course - I wasn't knocking that. Many editors are fans of subjects they write about, and I just don't think that automatically leads to not following policies/guidelines. Also, my comments so far should not be taken as my !vote or discussion on the actual merits of the AfD. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @StefenTower, I'm a baseball fan myself so I completely understand what you're saying but what I meant by a "fan" is that they wrote it like a fan's tribute to Clemente rather than as someone who is interested in baseball. I hope that clears any misunderstanding. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, the page is full of sources (easily meets GNG) and information about this Hall of Fame baseball player and noted humanitarian. Clemente's legacy and work deserves a page such as this, thanks for pointing it out. As for being one-sided, if there are sources listing negative information about Clemente's work and life please add them to the page. That's it's not balanced with negativity doesn't seem a good reason to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, by balance, I don't mean negativity. The creator of the article basically cut out a lot of material from the main page and the Wikiquote page. This page gives no information on Clemente that isn't already present in the main article or anything new but instead lists positive opinions of his contemporaries with the addition of having lists of books and documentaries. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any relevant information on this page is already present on Clemente's main page. It does not discuss his humanitarian work a lot either which, IMO, fits far better on the main page (Roberto Clemente) given how it was tied to his untimely death. I'm still in favor of deleting. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. You may be right, but since legacy pages are allowed on Wikipedia this one likely fits as long as it was created. Where does the encyclopedia draw the line when legacy pages are allowed? Clemente is such a national hero in Puerto Rico that he is likely the islands most famous citizen, and "legacy" probably covers such a prominent connection between the individual and his/her home. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the problem though, @Randy Kryn. This so-called legacy page does not even discuss his connection with Puerto Rico or his humanitarian work except in passing, nor does it list his significance or achievements, all of which are listed in the main page. It is just a list of quotes and books on Clemente. And I don't see a way of improving it without making it a duplicate of half the main article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, any chance you will change your vote given the lack of information about Clemente in this page? I remind you again that there is already a Category:Roberto Clemente for articles related to Clemente and any relevant information on this page is in "Roberto Clemente" or "Roberto Clemente Award" (and so on). This "legacy" page is nothing more than a list of opinions praising Clemente and books which, again, are already listed and cited on the main article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer that this article be deleted due to its lack of information on Clemente and the focus be on improving the main article (which needs a lot of improvement) and not this secondary page created from material lifted from "Roberto Clemente" and its sister links. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , if anything on the page had been removed from the main article just to fork it to this one it should certainly be put back. As a stand-alone page I personally like the emphasis on quotes, but as you say, they duplicate Wikiquote material, so it's a question of relying on Wikiquote to fill a gap in Wikipedia article styling. Since someone took the time to organize the page, and it reads interestingly and focused, the elements lacking can be added in. As for the nomination, this will probably be relisted unless other editors chime in. I'm a little surprised others from the Wikiproject Baseball haven't as yet, but the holidays usually are slower for things like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, but that is exactly the problem, you see: literally all the elements you think lack here are already in the main article and in more detail and with reliable sources. It seems you're ignoring that part entirely and focusing too much on the "legacy" part.
 * I also don't think it reads well or is particularly focused on anything but the opinions of players and coaches about different aspects of Clemente's game or personality. In some cases, the quote is not even about Clemente but mentions him in passing or in reference to another player.
 * Again: I would MUCH prefer to improve the main article's quality than focus on trying to salvage this mix of quotes which violates WP:POVFORK and WP:NPOV. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And, IMO, you should also be in favor of improving the main article which focuses on Clemente's legacy as a player or his player profile to match the format of other HOF players. To cut out info from there just to salvage this page, as you seem to imply, or even copy it from there is just not a good idea. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a thought for you. Because Clemente's page is prone attracting... um... overenthusiastic fans. This page is just the biggest example. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, nothing should be cut from the main article, if you read something I said as implying that then its incorrect. Forks should never harm or remove major data from their parent pages, but many do. When others chime here the page will likely be deleted. My own view is that Wikiquote is fine but it is not Wikipedia, and since someone took the time to put this Clemente page up, and it covers the praise and honors received by someone who deserves focus on his legacy, when asked if it should be kept or deleted I'd personally go with keep (I've been called an ultra-inclusionist as an insult which I take as a compliment, so am probably an outlier regarding your reading of Wikipedia rules and regs. I've read the page over again and do like it). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, there are MANY athletes who deserve focus on their legacy and that is always covered sufficiantly on their pages because that is where people tend to read about an athlete more.
 * And contrary to what you have said a few times, this page does not cover "praise and honors" (as you said) Clemente has received in any way that is relevant. It does not discuss what he has done either because, again, that is already mentioned on the main page which is where people go and look for information on Clemente. And having read the policy on content forks, this one doesn't seem to meet the standards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a reasonable spin out of the Roberto Clemente article which would be overwhelmed if all of this (reliably sourced) material were included.  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eluchil404, if you don't count the quotes (and I don't since there are no baseball pages with a list of quotes on them - and these are on Clemente's Wikiquote page with more detail/context), what little relevant information present in this page is ALREADY on the main page and in more detail (I have been improving the main article for a while now) so there is no danger of "Roberto Clemente" being overwhelmed.
 * This page has little to do with Clemente's legacy, in any case. It's basically a list of quotes praising Clemente's skills as a player; a few mention him in reference to other players (should be noted that all of these quotes and references - some are without links, I should add - were lifted from Clemente's wikiquote page). Additionally, a spin-off in NOT required to explain what already comfortably fits on the main article and within the word limit. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep. I see no legitimate reason to delete this article based on 1) whether we've had an article like this before for baseball players (else with that attitude how would the Wikipedia have expanded at all?); 2) having this subarticle distracts from working on the main article; 3) that the article doesn't yet have expected details; or 4) that the article is organized poorly (quote lists). Based on the discussion so far for me, the bottom line is whether this is a subject worthy of its own article and if there is likely enough reliable sources to fill it in. My hunch is that the subject easily meets that criteria. Of course, this article shouldn't steal key material from the main article, but part of the rationale for subarticles is to go into greater detail while allowing the main article to summarize (hit the big points). My vote is to keep for now, and give it a chance to improve. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @StefenTower. I've given a lot of legitimate reasons. The fact of the matter is that this is an article of little substance with little information; it's just quotes (and references) cherrypicked/stolen from Wikiquote - hence WP:NPOV - and (as I have emphasized many times) any relevant material is already on Clemente's main page in greater detail. And there are already many articles on Clemente which already delve into his legacy in further detail, (all are listed on Template:Roberto Clemente). As I mentioned earlier: this is nothing more than a fan's tribute to Clemente and there is frankly no point or purpose to try and fix it when there are already well-written articles on this very topic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I accept you have a heartfelt opinion here, but I don't agree with the apparent exasperation you relay. Again, the bottom line is that the subject is worthy of an article, and I am not going to judge its existence on anyone's assumed motivation of involved editors per WP:AGF. It's not merely fandom that would produce such an article. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @StefenTower, if I sound exasperated it is because I can't seem to get my point across as to why this article is pointless. And, to clarify, I am not judging the creator of this article for being a Clemente fan. I'm judging the article as being one-sided and created of lifted material from other articles about Clemente. The reliable sources are all from Wikiquote as well; some don't even have links in them.
 * I should also note that you undid the speedy deletion of this article as well and long after this page was deleted/redirected to the main article but gave no reason for doing so other that it was "well-sourced" - but that is not why this page was deleted then and it isn't why I nominated it now. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I undid a Prod, and I didn't have to have a reason for that other than suggesting it should go through a more complete review. Other than that, your reply here seems to be desirous of me doing another round of debate with you. Re-stating things isn't constructive or a best use of time. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have seen no good reason from anyone voting "keep". That it MIGHT be improved or that it has reliable sources are not good reasons to keep an article and are besides the point: it is that the article A) one-sided and B) pointless because the main page - and several other articles on Clemente - already covers Clemente's legacy and does it better. Hence, there is no point in salvaging this article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems very close to wikilawyering. That you don't agree with others' reasons doesn't mean they aren't valid. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Summary of my !vote: Likely loads of WP:RS for expansion, worthy subtopic of very notable subject with a tremendous legacy ("Legacy of..." articles being an established thing at WP, to boot), and WP:SOFIXIT. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 07:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have articles like Public image of Mother Teresa, Public image of Taylor Swift, and Public image of George W. Bush. I think this could easily be refactored into a Public image of Roberto Clemente page consistent with that series of articles. BD2412  T 02:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a constructive thought, but it seems that "legacy" is inclusive of "public image". Legacy isn't just about what people have said and continue to say about the subject, but what things (e.g. laws and culture) were changed because of the subject. What exists now because Clemente was around? I think about this a lot when working on the article of Muhammad Ali as one hard example. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 02:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, poking around a bit, I see that articles like Legacy of George Washington and Legacy of Alan Turing exist. It seems within bounds to stay parked where we are. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 03:36, 8 January 2024 (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.