Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball hitters with six runs in one game


 * 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. Wizardman 11:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball hitters with six runs in one game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Other than the Baseball Almanac source that only lumps it into a general list of runs scored records, I don't find any other sources that establish notability. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Pretty clearly non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep another source appears to be the 2008 version of The Sporting News Complete Baseball Record Book. I'd say that's reliable.  Please see Template:Did you know nominations/List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game for a related ongoing discussion on whether this source is reliable.  It is no longer available for download from the internet. - Hoops gza (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd need a lot more than just two sources (one that's offline; the other that doesn't even mention the milestone) to establish notability. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why "a lot more than just two sources"? WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."  "Multiple" is not necessarily "a lot more than just two."  I would say that if the quality of the sources is high enough, three may be fine.  And I am not sure why you are raising an issue about one of the sources being offline.  How is that relevant? Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important part of major league baseball record keeping like other lists at Template:Major League Baseball records like List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game, List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game, List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those 3 lists you mentioned have their own (multiple) sources confirming their importance. That means refs that directly say those are single-game milestones.  I'm not seeing any sources here establishing that kind of notability.  Would you mind providing some? —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a problem, as the record is seven, according to the article. Maybe rename List of Major League Baseball hitters with the most runs in one game and include that amazing pitcher? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. Regardless of the name, that amazing pitcher needs to be added to the list.  After all, you can't score 7 runs in a game without having scored 6. Rlendog (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is talking about the most runs scored in a MLB game. The topic is notable, as runs are a standard baseball statistic. The way it's titled: "List of Major League Baseball hitters with six runs in one game" is a bit strange at first glance since 6 seems a random number. I'd be OK with renaming it as Clarityf stated above. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - but possibly rename per Clarityfiend. The Baseball Almanac and The Sporting News are certainly reliable sources.  And the New York Times has seen fit to remark on the feat as being noteworthy mutilple times, e.g.,   Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Both New York Times mentions are one sentence mentions of a specific player who has accomplished the feat - it is by no means extensive coverage of the phenomenon. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep has the same level of relevance as most MLB lists of this nature which tend to conflate one parameter with one other parameter. It's alien to most of the rest of the known universe but this article is no more guilty than any of the others, and while that's an easy otherstuffexists argument, I'm tending to agree that a stat most can understand (i.e. most goals in a game) is notable enough if it's happened only a few times.  Like a double hat-trick in "soccer".  Rare as. (Oh, and claiming "offline" sources to be any less reliable than online sources is just wrong, plainly incorrect, and should be dismissed out of hand.  You can't get to a library?  Unlucky.)  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DIFFSPLEASE to where I said "offline" sources to be less reliable than online ones. Can't find the diff – thought so, because I didn't say that.  Shove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure I attributed anything to you, although right now you seem to have developed a real "me me me" complex! Take a break from the yelling and swearing and screeching.  Although before that, you may wish to respond to Rlendog's question above, I'd be fascinated by the answer myself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So who are you attributing the claim to then? I don't see anyone else making such a statement, so your demand that this non-existent claim "should be dismissed out of hand" is simply baffling. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a general statement, it could be argued that your somewhat bizarre note that an offline source isn't sufficient to source an article formed part of the thinking there. Anyway, looking forward to your answers.  As long as they don't contain the usual amount of profanity. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your demand to anyone who opposes your viewpoint to "take a break" or "remove yourself for a while" is getting really old. In fact, it seems that you're the one who needs to take a break.  You talk about "yelling … and screeching" from me.  Are you hearing voices in your head?  You better get that checked up. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again (unsurprisingly) you've missed the point. I said "just two sources" alone won't establish notability.  Describing what those two sources entail doesn't "form part of the thinking there" – just makes it clear for everyone else. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, look closer to home ;)! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename per Clarityfiend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Per the above keeps. Any discussion as to renaming the article can appropriately take place after the close, on the article's talk page. Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That will certainly not be necessary. Consensus here is keep and rename.  Having to discuss it again on the article's talk page is simply redundant, goes against the consensus established here, and is merely a weak attempt to keep the inferior status quo. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, deletion reviews are different from rename proposals. As Epeefleche states, we can discuss name changes after this snow close has closed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the third sentence of the WP:AFD page clearly states that "the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." As an admin I thought you'd know this, but unfortunately you're allowing our current discussion at WT:DYK to cloud your judgment elsewhere on unrelated matters.  What a shame. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It is unreasonable to use the choices of a few people who only were making opinions based on delete or keep to make a move decision.  The move decision should be a standalone discussion to involve everyone interested, not just a handful of people who made suggestions at this flawed snow close AFD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my, you're really getting desperate now that I've disproven your lie above. Only one user said this is a snow close AFD, yet when four different users vote to rename you dismiss it as merely "the choices of a few people".  If we need a "standalone discussion" as you falsely claim, why does the AFD page even bother mentioning it as an option? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Anyway, we'll leave it to the closing admin to decide, shall we?  Cheers now! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems kind of trivial and overly specific, and it's not like it involves one of the 'big three' offensive stats (HR, BA, RBI), but I'm swayed by the above keep votes and at this point voting delete seems futile anyway. Alex (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2014 (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.