Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Inappropriate Comments by Bert Blyleven


 * 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 merge. Jaranda wat's sup 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Inappropriate Comments by Bert Blyleven
I think it's obvious this is listcruft at best, unencyclopedic, and possibly grounds for speedy delete. I find it funny that the author includes sources and references in an attempt to legitimize this page. Anthony Hit me up... 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This should really just be a part of the Bert Blyleven article not its own article. Popcorn2008 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008


 * Keep I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, Anthony. If you've ever watched a Twins broadcast, which I suspect you haven't, you'd see that Blyleven makes these comments surprisingly often.  According to Wikipedia, "listcruft" is a list that is "indiscriminate, or of interest only to a very restricted number of people."  This is neither, despite your presumptuous statement that it is "obvious" that it is.  First, it is not indiscriminate, as it deals with a very specific subject.  Second, baseball isn't exactly something with only a cult following.  Millions of people watch Major League Baseball and teams like the Twins.  Lots of people enjoy Twins broadcasts, and lots of people would find it entertaining to read a list of Blyleven's inappropriate comments assembled into one place.  Just because something is amusing does not mean it is listcruft or unencyclopedic.  I was only able to think of a few examples offhand, but this list will grow as long as Blyleven is in the broadcast booth.  Also, I wasn't citing sources to legitimize the article -- the article is already legitimate -- but because I was trying to follow proper Wikipedia protocol.  (Although I suppose it may have been in the back of my mind that somebody like you would have a hair trigger on the delete button.)  And, Popcorn2008, I don't think this would work as part of Blyleven's article.  This list could get quite long, and as such, it would overwhelm the Blyleven article.  It is a discrete subset of info on Blyleven, and seems worthy of a separate page -- and particularly well-suited to be a list page. Sparkyfry 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely because he makes these comments so often, it is indiscriminate, which here is close to meaning "large". The tag does not apply to the subject of the list, but to its content. See WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Also, "very restricted" tends to mean that this is interesting only to people intensely interested in the specific subject. "Lots of people enjoy Twins broadcasts," but the vast majority of them are probably not interested in whatever Blyleven has said in the past. I should add to the deletion rationale that the title is POV and applies a POV to the items on the list, and the article is very close to a db-attack. (Note: If I missed the boat with this explanation, feel free to correct me. And no, Sparky, I'm not including you.) Morgan Wick 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I see no citations of news coverage indicating that these comments were called into question in the Minneapolis-area media. As it is, it's inherently subjective. Someone thus might add some comment about the poor play of their favorite player. But, if there were an established paper trail of criticism, I'd say it's Wikipedia-worthy. Daniel Case 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Yes, there are citations, but only in support of the Paula Abdul comment. And both of them are blogs, not our favorite sources. Daniel Case 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unencyclopedic.--Peta 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not nearly notible enough for its own article --Musaabdulrashid 07:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bert Blyleven, which isn't tremendously long. If this is done I see no reason to delete.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote, merge to Bert Blyleven or delete. The categorization of comments as "inappropriate" seems like a POV judgement. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above.  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there's only three of them, and they hardly seem to have caused much uproar. Should be a section in Bert Blyleven, if anything.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Transwik to wikiquote if desired, but I don't know if it's even notable enough to warrant that. Kafziel 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the POV, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one, and this can't be written without one. Also per Kafziel. Jacqui ★ 13:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is highly subjective. Who decides what qualifies as "inappropriate"? Non-encyclopedic and prone to personal judgment. Scorpiondollprincess 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, without merging. None of these quotes seem particularly noteworthy (nor "inappropriate"). Andrew Levine 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bert Blyleven. Rohirok 15:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to/with the Bert Blyleven article. This does not require an AfD. Themindset 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote without the POV label of inappropriate -(chubbstar) — talk
 * Transwiki per (chubbstar). --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to something less POV, then transwiki to Wikiquote. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bert Blyleven because there are only three quotes and the inappropriate tag is POV. I'd also suggest a merger for Circle Me, Bert. (And, while we're at it, Blyleven shouldn't be a Hall of Famer IMO.) SliceNYC 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bert Blyleven because it is needed to show Bert's personality. I know that these have been said because I have heard all of them, as a fan of the Twins, and have listened to Bert call games for the Twins for many years. --Footballplayr69 01:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge this and Circle Me, Bert into the main Bert Blyleven article. If it gets to the point where there is a substantial amount of comments then the splinter article could be recreated. Agne 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no merge. This is original research, and the sources cited (sports blogs) are not reliable. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eyeroll We're actually discussing an article with 3 bullet points? Merge with BB. (The Paula Abdul comment appeared in the Mpls Star Trib, I'm sure the others ar e sourceable too.) ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, I've never laughed so hard as I did when I saw the link to this article. Unfortunately it must go.  FancyPants 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you this is funny, check out these comments made by Queen Elizabeth's husband, Prince Philip. Great stuff. Kafziel 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nodding approvingly at article Just to respond to a couple points. First: "Inappropriate" may seem like a subjective word, but I think the examples I've cited are pretty clearly objectively inappropriate.  Is anybody really arguing that jokes about anal sex and public masturbation are appropriate for broadcasts of the supposedly family-friendly sport of baseball?  "Inappropriate" seemed like the best word to title this article.  Reasonable people should agree on what's inappropriate.  Second: how would you guys suggest sourcing this material?  Other commenters and I remember the comments clearly, but there isn't exactly a permanent record of it out there.  The Paula Abdul comment made the local newspaper, but that is now gone unless you pay for Lexis-Nexis.  Sports blogs seemed like the next best thing, and only publicly available place referring to the comments.  Plus, Deadspin is a relatively reliable, well-read blog.  I can't think of any other place to cite.  Suggestions? Sparkyfry 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Our policy is fairly clear on this that unless they make the news they're not WP material. (I added the Strib source to the Paula Abdul episode. That's good enough as it is.) I don't have much of a problem with the word "inappropriate" if it is used by various sources, but I'm also not sure why this should be a stand-alone article. The BB article is short enough as it is, and we routinely include a "Controversy" section in bio articles where the subject has been the target of criticism in the media. ~ trialsanderrors 17:40, 9 August 2006 (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.