Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010


 * 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 to the corresponding XXXX Major League Baseball season article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced and single sourced annual lists that only go back to 1985, which I don't think benefit the project. I believe it would be better for the project to keep one of these, List of Major League Baseball managers in 2012, and move it to List of current Major League Baseball managers, similar to List of current National Football League head coaches. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Follow-up I see now in the process of tagging each individual page that the 1993 and 1994 pages are actually redirects: 1993 to 1993 Major League Baseball season and 1994 to 1994 in baseball. Perhaps we could simply merge and redirect info to the appropriate MLB season pages, if they don't already contain that information. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Fears of unsourced or "single sourced" status are misplaced, this is basic information. Useful source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to appropriate Major League Baseball season articles... the information can easily be contained there... no reason for all these different articles. Spanneraol (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I find myself looking for lists like this all the time. They're great as a quick reference, rather than having to look deep in an article elsewhere. These lists do seem to need some clean-up, though. On the 2010 list, for example, the use of the word "Replacing" is misleading in most cases. A separate column with "Predecessor" would be a lot better. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to fail WP:ITSUSEFUL. External links, like B Ref and the Cube, will have this info. Look there if you need it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pages on notable subjects in need of improvement should be improved, not deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But is it notable to have a page on managers for each year? What do we gain from this that we don't already get from the FL's we have for each team? Those pages list all of the people who have held the same notable position. This is throwing a bunch of them together solely on the basis that their tenures overlapped. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We gain the ability to look at a given year and see, at a glance, who the various teams' managers were. Which is something that I believe has value. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: Category:Lists of leaders by year. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But cant we accomplish the same thing by adding these lists to the MLB season pages as suggested below? Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, though I think some of those pages are a little on the long side already, and have the potential to become significantly more so. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge, yearly lists is overkill. Having the team pages for managers is plenty. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge suggestion below. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the proper season article, I agree "unsourced" in a list like that isn't a valid excuse in this AFD, but I see absolutely no reason why this deserves a separate page neither, overlisting and perfectly fine. (Note) I was the one who redirected the 93 and 94 pages along with most of the other pages years ago before being reverted by a newish user, and I was in process of reverting, merging and redirecting the rest when the AFD was created. Secret account 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. Would anyone object to that merging? I think it's the best thing, as these pages serve little to no purpose as stand-alone lists. (And as for the unsourced thing, I was commenting on the poor status of the article, but did not mean for that to be the reason to delete or merge.) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to their respective "XXXX Major League Baseball season" articlea. Fails WP:LISTN with lack of sources that discuss the group as a whole.  Merge in the interest of always WP:PRESERVEing when possible.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment Discussion tilts toward merge and redirect but a larger quorum would be helpful to my sleep for an AFD on so many articles. causa sui (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why can't we have one list of Major League Baseball managers and set it up like a chart, noting their active years and teams that they managed? That one article would be more useful than all of these separate articles.  Them From  Space  18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we already have List of Major League Baseball managers and all the corresponding team lists...adding every manager in history and putting it into a chart would be fairly unwieldy. Easier to group it by team like we do now. Spanneraol (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Then delete or redirect to an appropriate article as these are redundant to other, better presented articles.  Them From  Space  20:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to their respective season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, in some form. This might have been better if presented as a merge suggestion, as even nom doesn't seem to be seeking deletion.  I understand and empathize with his annoyance with sourcing, but I believe our approach is to call for sourcing by tagging the article (or adding sources), rather than to use that as a reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most are saying to merge due to lack of notability for a standalone article. Lack of sourcing is just a symptom of the notability issue.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I started off believing deletion was the way to go. Now, I'm seeing the benefit of merging instead. Sourcing is not the reason for deletion or merging, insufficient notability for stand-alone lists is the reason. These pages should either be merged to the MLB season articles where they are relevant, or deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to their specific articles. We really don't need articles that are simply made up of tables and text and a tiny infobox. Hurricanefan25  &#124;  talk  23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I love reading paper encyclopedias as a kid at the school library and at home. If I'm interested in baseball, something like this article would be something that I'll expect from an encyclopedia. I can't cite which Wikipedia guideline or policy what it's about but I guess something like this article is the spirit and intent of an online or paper encyclopedia. The yearly entries are essential for someone who's doing research. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this argument fails WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (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.