Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOT. There is no independent notability to the 2000 hit mark as there is for something like 3000 hit club, 500 home run club, etc, etc. At best nowadays it gets briefly mentioned as a statistical note (like your car hitting 100k miles) in a game summary. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This opens a whole can of worms regarding similar pages, like List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles, List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs batted in, List of Major League Baseball players with 4000 total bases, etc. Not saying the can of worms shouldn't be opened, I am undecided right now, I'm just sayin'. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just think it's a can that needs opening. Outside of the big clubs, events, and milestones we have this giant set of lists of arbitrary marks. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete 2000 hits is not a regularly celebrated milestone, 3000 is. 3000 makes you a likely Hall of Famer, 2000 makes you a very good player, but there have been many 2000 hit players who will not be considered seriously for the Hall of Fame. Eauhomme (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I entirely understand the rationale for deletion here, and I'm even somewhat inclined to agree. That said, I don't think this conflicts with WP:NOT. That portion of the WP:NOT policy says the following about excessive listing of statistics: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." Sure, MLB players with 3000 hits are in a much more exclusive club, but there are still only 260 players on this list – not many at all, given the sheer number of men who have played in the major leagues. As such, this list isn't exactly "long and sprawling," in my opinion. But enough about What Wikipedia Is Not; what about What Wikipedia Is? According to WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." One certainly can find these kind of baseball statistical listings in almanacs, both general and specialized. Finally, to address the point about the questionable notability of the milestone – sure, it's far from earth-shattering when players have their 2000th hit, but, as a baseball fan, I know I've seen newspapers and TV programs mark the occasion when a player passes the milestone. 2000 isn't as big of a deal as 3000, but it's still no small feat. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is establishing general notability for the list. Nowadays players get mentioned when they cross 2k, but I have never seen all 2k hitters collected in a list like this outside of Wikipedia, suggesting it doesn't really have huge notability. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If players get mentioned nowadays (even though they weren't back in the day, isn't that enough for notability? I easily found articles for Ichiro, Jeter and Grudzielanek crossing 2000 hits. I'm sure we could find all instances in the last ten or twenty years if we looked a little deeper. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic we need dozens of these rather pointless lists. Almost every round number of anything gets mentioned somewhere. That establishes notability of the event for the individual, not notability of the group overall. A player's first MLB hit is almost always noted in game summaries but we don't have List of MLB players with one hit. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that would be an excessively long statistical list. This list is not; there are only 260 players on it. Staxringold, you've never seen this list outside of Wikipedia? Have you checked general or baseball almanacs to see whether this list is in there? (I hope this doesn't sound patronizing – that's not my intent. It's an honest question.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I really haven't. And remember, listing in a pure statistics source (baseball-reference, for example, lists the top 1000 in career hits which goes to 1146) does not meet the qualifications for WP:RS and WP:GNG. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In keeping with the spirit of what User:A Stop at Willoughby is trying to promote, I'd have less of a problem of keeping an article that was titled, for example, List of Major League Baseball career hit leaders whose title did not put undue notability to an arbitrary number like 2,000, but whose content was implicitly limited to a number that was manageable (and most likely round e.g. 50, 100, etc to again avoid undue significance or uproar from a reader whose favorite player gets slighted). —Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters does and in some ways I think that list is even worse than this one. It is merely a direct clone of the baseball-reference table and has no particular notability. Nobody cares, knows, or discusses who is 473rd all time in HRs, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article that keeps track of it. That's the definition of NOTSTATS, a non-notable statistical tracking better left to the likes of B-R. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there really is no reason to keep this article as anyone can go to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters to find hitters with 2000 hits, especially since there is no notable text that can be added here about the 2000 hit club. This still leaves open the general question of that to do with generic "leader" lists that applies to not only to baseball articles but also to other sports. —Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratched above. I didnt realize Staxringold pointed to a home run list, not a hit list.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per ASaWilloughby. NOTSTAT doesn't apply, by its own terms, and there's no logical deletion rationale. "A is not as notable as B" isn't recognized grounds for deletion; if it were, virtually nothing could survive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel NOTSTAT absolutely applies. A listing of statistics alone is, by NOTSTAT, not what Wikipedia is for. The event must have independent notability. My argument, as I said above to Muboshgu, is that merely sometimes being noted in game summaries does not establish notability for the club or we would need List of MLB players with one hit, List of MLB players with one home run, List of MLB players with 100 hits, etc, etc, etc. The group has to be notable for the group to have an article. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This list allows readers to get an understanding about baseball history and watch players achieve milestones. There aren't too many people on this list. Many of the people who make this list are in the Hall of Fame. It serves as a portal to allow readers to find out about other great legends of MLB. Without it, we are limited to the select few in the 3,000 hit club. Arnabdas (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then they can read Major League Baseball All-Century Team, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, or List of Major League Baseball retired numbers. Having notable members does not make an arbitrary group notable. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Though that is true, having people climb up the list makes it a reference tool that the others do not. "Derek Jeter just passed Frank Robinson on the hit list...so who is Frank Robinson? Let me read about him." It's a valuable portal that the other lists you mentioned wouldn't necessarily bring because of the dynamic nature of this list. Arnabdas (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOT, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the 2,000 hit club have not been found that discuss indepth the 2,000 hit club as a whole, and need to go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage of a single sentence of a passing mention of the "milestone" by an individual. Otherwise, such an occurrence seems WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I forgot about ROUTINE. It's the perfect policy link to explain my point (that an article which says "John Smith recorded his 2000th hit Tuesday" doesn't establish notability for this list as a whole). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This certainly can't provide a basis for deletion. The way to address the problem of lacking "sufficient explanatory text" would be to provide sufficient text, not to delete the article. The !vote doesn't claim that such text can't be written, and therefore fails in terms of deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As the editor who wrote the vote, let me clarify that I looked at the sources and do not believe that the supporting text can be written without WP:OR to prop up its notability. I suppose an AfD where the argument for deletion was lack of independent resources could be counter-argued that it didnt say independent resources couldn't be found.  Note to self to be more explicit. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the quote in WP:NOT says it all. Besides 2000 is arbitrary, why not 2200 or 2500. 3,000 hit club deserves a list because it is highly notable and heavily reported by the media. So, 3000 is not arbitrary. And its existence doesn't violate WP:NOT.— Chris! c / t 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just like what Muboshgu said, there are tons of these lists. Saves, wins, homers, hits, strikeouts, WHIP, total bases, triples, doubles, stolen bases, walks, walks allowed, games started, games finished, etc. We would have to delete all of them... Obviously, I'm a big editor of these articles and therefore want to keep them, but that's for personal reasons. Anyway, it's a "big can of worms". Jonathansuh (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a can of worms that needs opening. Outside of the 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 win club, 500 home run club, 30-30 club, 40-40 club, List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game, and other "clubs" with external notability I see no establishing whatsoever of notability outside of WP:ROUTINE. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Each statistical page has been, and always will be, a case by case basis for its merits. This is not the discussion to bring up other baseball stats pages. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I'm glad Staxringold nominated this article alone and not all at once. They can be considered case by case, but all other than the "clubs" (300 wins, 500 HRs, 3000 hits) are vulnerable for their own AfDs, whether this one is closed as keep or delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I hear the NOTSTATS argument, but I think of this like a template for organizing these biographies. Sure, lists of players with 1 hit or some other number of hits might not be useful, but 2,000 is a very reasonable cut off, and it needs a barometer. Its not even that long. If this article would be removed, would a list of active players by number of hits be reasonable?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are easy tests for that. WP:N and WP:GNG. I have yet to see anyone bring up a source which lists 2000 as a notable hit grouping. If this type of list is left to stand then there is literally no limit on the number of potential lists. 3000 hit club is an already existing, featured quality, heavily discussed by 3rd party sources list of baseball players by career hits. If this is left to stand then why not List of Major League Baseball players with 2001 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2002 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2003 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2004 hits, etc, etc? The use of arbitrary cutoffs makes sense for dynamic lists with a large/undefined number of members (such as List of highest paid Major League Baseball players). We already have a clearly defined career hits list (3000 hit club), however, that covers this subject. This is just meaningless, unnecessary, WP:NOTSTATS violating listcruft. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one:. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources, presented without any judgment, as I am still undecided: That last one is from 1949. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second source from NT Times says "Maybe 2,000 hits is not a huge accomplishment in baseball." I dont think anyone questions notability of 3000. At a generic sports stat level, while one could argue that one article on the list of leaders of a stat might be notable (throwing aside what the cutoff point is), someone needs to come up with a good argument for me to support two lists on the same stat, hits. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the arguments, Stax is completely right. As these lists are, they are list cruft and should be deleted. The only way I could change my mind is if this article is rewritten as 2000 hit club with narrative and sourcing. Similarly, maybe we can revisit 600 home run club, which is just as arbitrary a cutoff not covering what 500 home run club covers in a proper way, and yet survived an AfD last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a list of those with the most career hits in major league baseball is certainly a notable list. Why 2000?  Can't answer that--BUT that is an "editing" issue (and, of course, an "article renaming" issue) but not an issue of deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The notable list for MLB hit leaders already exists. It is called 3,000 hit club. This page is a completely unnecessary, completely unnotable extension of that list. Staxringold talkcontribs 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently it's not "completely" unnotable as you say--6 editors in this discussion believe it to be notable while 3 do not. While I understand that you believe it to be unnotable, to state that is it "completely" unnotable is putting unddue weight on your arguments and position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I've enjoyed the irony in the argument that 2000 hits is arbitrary but 3000 hits is some gold standard, there is generally substantive media coverage when player get their 2000th hit. There isn't for their 2200th, or their 1987th, etc.  It's a milestone that is deemed notable by media coverage, despite that it doesn't guarantee Baseball hall of fame admission (which though argued earlier, really has no bearing on the notability of this list). matt91486 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the dozenth time, WP:ROUTINE. The event of an individual player reaching 2000 hits gets noted in media reports, but the group itself has no notability. The clubs that have been listed satisfy WP:N because the group itself (such as the 3000 hit club) gets coverage from outside sources. The position you are arguing completely ignores the difference between notability of an event (reaching 2000 hits) and notability of all people who have achieved that moment. As I've said, someone's first ML hit is always noted in media reports, where is List of Major League Baseball players with one hit. Ditto for 100. And 500. And 1000. And usually 1500 and certainly 2500. If we allow collections of notable events where the collection itself is not notable then we will be able to double the size of Wikipedia purely with rehashing statistical group lists like this over and over again. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, arbitrary cutoff lines have their place in lists where no other reasonable organizer exists. I take far less issue with a list like this for... Say career saves leaders because you need some limiter (you can't list every pitcher in history with a save) and no natural one exists from third-party sources. But with hits there is 3,000 hit club. With home runs there is 500 home run club. With wins there is 300 win club, etc. Going beyond those groups clearly set as notable by outside sourcing is turning WP:NOT on it's head. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to keep repeating arguments already made.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess, but as an AFD with clear implications for a great many articles I would hope some of the many keep voters would answer my question/point rather than similarly repeating the same point and voting Keep. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the small number of people at the 2000 hit threshold compared to the overall number of players who have participated in baseball, I think it's obvious that coverage of this topic is not routine relative to day to day baseball coverage. It might happen every time a player reaches the mark, but that doesn't make it routine coverage.  Routine coverage is a game box score and recap; milestones generally do not result in routine coverage of a player's career but something more.  matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping count of a statistic for a few hundred people sounds pretty WP:ROUTINE to me. Especially since the article provides no context as to why 2000 hits means anything. As Stax said, why not set the cutoff at 2500, or 1500, or 2250? We have sites like Fangraphs, B Ref, the Cube, etc., for simply keeping count. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs (see WP:5P). As for the reason behind setting a cutoff at 2,000 hits – at the risk of stating the obvious, I suppose it's because 2,000 is more of a nice, round number than the others you've listed. I know that doesn't make it less arbitrary according to your interpretation, but still... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As some of the delete !voters acknowledge, reaching 2000 hits is a milestone that is often recognized when a player reaches it. As such, it makes a valid list delimiter under WP:LSC.  I could see a problem if this list was too long, but at 260 I don't think it is.  Nor is this a WP:NOTSTATS issue, any more than a list of players with 3000 hits would be. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an accomplishment, sure, but so is 1000 hits and we don't have a page for that, even though a player gets press for his 1000th hit. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They get a lot more press for 2000 hits than for 1000 hits, and 2000 begins to get used in HOF discussions (especially defensive positions), whereas 1000 hits does not. And 1000 hits would encompass so many players as to make the list meaningless, whereas 2000 is a manageable size.  Effectively, this list provides the all time hits leaders, using the 2000 mark (which is an amount that gets press attention) as an appropriate cutoff. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no sourcing establishing, for example, your claim that 2000 hits is a line used in HoF discussions. That's the point, this list is both an arbitrary cutoff and duplicates (in it's goal) what an article of established notability (3000 hit club) does. Certainly, like 30-30 club and 40-40 club if they both had sufficient notability there'd be a reason for both of them. I see no such notability established in this article. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not an arbitrary cutoff, because numerous sources remark on when a player gets their 2000th hit, and being a member of the 2000 hit club (or falling just short, such as Carl Furillo or Tony Oliva) is often mentioned in obituaries and other summaries of a player's career or discussions of whether they belong or not in the Hall of Fame. Not the 2253 hit club or the 1961 hit club, but the 2000 hit club.  It is a factor in the Bill James Hall of Fame monitor, which I suppose can be dismissed as just Bill James' opinion, but a widely published and discussed one.  And it gets used as a factor in supporting hall of fame candidacies of players at defensive positions (for example, this article on Gary Carter's candidacy ; I recall it also being support for Ozzie Smith not being solely a defensive specialist in his HOF debates). Rlendog (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And here is an article discussing Jorge Posada's potential HOF candidacy in terms of whether or not he will reach 2000 hits. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And to this OP of yours, there is a ton that makes 3000 a better cutoff than 2000. It's discussed in third party sources. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that reaching 3000 hits is more impressive than reaching 2000 hits. I don't know that that makes it a better cutoff.  We could use 4000 hits and have a list of 2. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably a better way to say this is that 3000 hits is absolutely a more notable accomplishment than 2000 hits, and of course would be an appropriate delimiter for a list. But that does not mean that 2000 hits is not notable enough to be an appropriate delimiter for a list. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it does mean that there's no "We need this as an arbitrary cutoff" justification, because we already have an established cutoff (3000) for a career hits leaders list. If 2000 is a notable line, establish the notability. That's all I'm asking. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Baseball is a very special game encompassing players now from all over the world, and the reason it *is* special is because of the statistics cited, discussions and debate on who was the better player or team in the major leagues. For those who say just go to BB-ref.com or The Cube or Fangraphs, they don't realize that most casual fans don't know about those websites or actually want to go that deeply into the statistics angle. Wikipedia may not be an almanac (as one user mentioned), but it *is* an encyclopedia and should be given the appropriate encompassing treatment as one. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3,000 hit club article already exists and is notable from a WP:GNG perspective because sources talk about its significance as a standard of hitting and as a Hall of Fame indicator, and its members as a whole. Coverage of 2000 is mostly a WP:ROUTINE sentence that a player passed the milestone. Be clear that 3000 is not an arbitrary limit proposed by editors when its notability is derived from reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the 3,000 hit club is notable. But attaining 2000 hits is notable as well, as demonstrated by the fact that it makes the news pretty much whenever a player reaches it.  And, it gets discussed as a notable accomplishment in discussing players' careers, including Hall of Fame discussions.  Or here is an article using the accomplishment of 2000 hits as a reason to assess the players' career, including his place in history and his hall of fame chances.  It is hardly a WP:ROUTINE accomplishment.  And the fact that it gets such coverage indicates that it is not a arbitrary cutoff, but a legitimate one.  Otherwise, the accomplishment would not be covered whenever it happens - does getting into the 1769 hit club ever get coverage like the 2000 hit club?   Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By that argument, an article on 2,500 hit would be justified based purely on passing references in articles found in Google. People have a fixation on numbers ending in zeros, but its a dangerous precedent to equate that with notability if the sources dont spend more than a sentence each talking about it. —Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A 2500 hit article would not be a problem if it wasn't redundant with the 2000 hit article. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point. These lists (anything HR related with 500 HRC, hit related with 3k hits, etc) are just redundant listings of stats without independent notability. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A 2000 hits article is not redundant with a 3000 hits article because there are players with 2000 hits but not 3000. And a 3000 hits article is not redundant with a 2000 hits article because there is more to say about the 3000 hits level (e.g., near automatic HOF selection, etc.).  But I don't think there is anything special to be said about 2500 hits that would not be redundant to 2000.  Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, this AfD is not closed? Good, cause I still think it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep That is not a legitimate reason, and you don't give any reasons why. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - 2000 hits simply isn't a notable milestone in baseball. The "magic numbers" wehn talking about HoF inclusion has been 3000 hits and 500 hrs.  Sorry, no one talks about 2000 other than maybe a nice "congrats" graphic on the center-field board when it happens. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The magic numbers for the HoF have been 3000 hits and 500 hrs, true. But the rest just isn't true, as I demonstrated in my response to your post below. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite true, as what you've scraped up is, at best, trivial. Note that your Baseball Digest 2,000 hit table appears alongside other trivial, statistical errata. We're not about to create articles for "Most hits without a World Series appearance" or "1,000 hits for different teams".  This is why we have WP:NOT, to protect the project from becoming a random stat repository. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2000 hit list is not trivial at all. The fact that the source filled the bottom of the last page of the main list by including some short, potentially interesting, list of related topics (such as a few players who split their 2000 hits by getting 1000 each on different teams) doesn't make the main list "trivial." Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as 2000 hits is not a notable milestone.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While 3,000 hits is the more notable stat, 2,000 is notable as well. BUC (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source that supports that claim? For 3,000 hits we have pretty strong support via places like the Baseball Almanac, the Baseball Hall of Fame.  I fail to see comparable recognition for for 2,000 hits being an actual milestone.  Newspapers will probably note when their hometown heroes reach that plateau, just as they no doubt do for 1,000 and 500, but it simply doesn't have the same cachet as 3,000. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes like I said before, 3,000 is more notable, but 2,000 is notable as well, there are plenty of news reports on players getting 2,000 hits. BUC (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One off mentions in news articles don't mean the group is notable. It means its notable for the individual, but that's not the same as a "2,000 hit club". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Newspapers will probably note when their hometown heroes reach that plateau." Except that newpapers don't just recognize hometown heroes.  Here is an article in the New York Times about a Seattle player reaching 2000 hits.  And here is an article in the USA Today, hardly a "hometown" paper, doing a full story on Todd Helton reaching 2000 hits.  And here is CBS doing a story on Magglio Ordonez reaching 2000 hits.  Further, here is the 2007 Baseball Almanac noting the players that reached 2000 hits in the prior season  - not 1000 hits or 1500 hits, but 2000 hits.
 * Of course, 2000 hits is not as notable as 3000 hits. But few if any baseball players are not as notable as Babe Ruth - that doesn't make those players non-notable from a Wikipedia standpoint.  Sure there are fewer lists of players with 2000 hits than 3000 hits.  But here is an independent reliable source with a list of players with 2000 hits (see page 80).  And here is an article from Baseball Digest that refers to it as a "noteworthy milestone" and "an accomplishment that carries with it the stamp of greatness.". Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is, newspapers mentioning individual players doesnt' establish notability for "2000 hits" itself. Find something along the lines of the HoF or the Almanac, then some of these keep calls might actually be legitimate; at the moment, they aren't much more than vague hand-waves with an empty WP:ITSNOTABLE basis. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Hall of Fame is not as likely to have a table on 2000 hits like they do on 3000 hits, given that 3000 hits has long been regarded as conferring "automatic" hall of fame status. But that argument is like saying that "Tom Glavine" isn't notable until he has a Hall of Fame plaque.  And I am not sure why the Baseball Digest list is not "along the lines" of the Almanac list.  And the newspaper articles I linked to are not "newspapers mentioning individual players," they are full length articles about the players in question specifically reaching the 2000 hit milestone.  And I explicitly avoided hometown newspapers.  Multiple full length articles in reliable sources do establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Why has this debate been relisted? It has already gone on for over two weeks and received more participation than the typical AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a pretty clear "no consensus" situation, and there are no important policy matters to settle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Therefore, if there is 'no consensus', there is not sufficient reason to delete an article unless it does reach the consensus level. Keeping should be the default condition on a page, unless a clear consensus is reached to delete it. Katydidit (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a single keep argument does anything more than "I saw a newspaper mention a player's 2,000th hit" or "there's not many on the list" (some weird variant of WP:NOHARM. 2000 is arbitrary, a nice, shiny round number. 3000, in baseball lore, is the "sweet spot". In order to be kept, 2,000 doesn't have to be shown to be as notable as 3,000, it has to be shown to simply be sufficiently notable on its own merits.  And apart from one listing amidst other highly-trivial lists in one Baseball Digest issue noted earlier, 2,000 doesn't collectively get the reliable source treatment that we require.  An admin with some balls to evaluate arguments (hopefully) won't take the cop-out of a NC. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not I saw a newspaper mention a player's 2,000th hit," but rather newspapers keep writing entire pesky articles about players getting their 2000th hit. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, that ones not make the collective itself notable. Let's look at a thousand hits;
 * Shannon Stewart
 * Stan Musial
 * Carl Crawford
 * Jeff Bagwell
 * Jason Giambi
 * Dan Driessen
 * Nomah
 * Joe Girardi
 * On the basis of the above, is there sufficient grounds for List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 hits? Tarc (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From a pure notability standpoint, very possibly. But I would not advocate that on practical grounds. Rlendog (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Individual event notability does not make their collection notable. Individual mayoral elections draw coverage in the news but we do not have List of mayoral elections. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure we do. For example, New York City mayoral elections.  And of course, the newspaper articles aren't the only source of notability for this topic.  We went around in circles on some of the others under my keep !vote above (e.g., some use in Hall of Fame discussions) and there is the Baseball Digest list I linked to above, for example. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. We have them where they are notable. That's the point. Find more sources that establish the notability of the 2000 hit club, not the notability of an individual player hitting 2k. 3,000 hit club is New York City mayoral elections. This list is List of mayoral elections with some arbitrary cutoff (like all cities with 100k< population). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I opposed the relisting. This should have been closed as delete per WP:NOT.— Chris! c / t 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The many articles that refer to a 2000 hit "club" implies that the collection, e.g., the club, is notable, i.e.,, , , , [mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090606]. 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another explicit list of players with 2000 hits. Rlendog (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reviewed this to see if I could come up with a way to close this properly, but I'm having difficulty. One issue that came up for me that I don't see anyone has mentioned is this... Right now the article is really only a list of players. I compared similar articles, such as the articles for 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. Those articles are more than simply lists, they talk about the achievement itself and its importance. My question is this; is there any potential for expanding this article to the extent that the other articles are? If not, I think it should go. Not because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but because to me that differentiates a true article from WP:NOTSTATS. --  At am a  頭 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this can't be expanded to the extent of the 3000 hits or 500 HR pages. Sure, it could be expanded from what it is to talk about what it means to have 2000 hits in a career, with some of the sources that have been provided in this AfD. However, that is really more WP:ROUTINE coverage of them reaching 2000 hits and doesn't give the same perspective as an article referencing 3000 hits, because in the world of baseball statistics, 2000 hits is nice, but 3000 hits is the holy grail. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per BUC. Does not conflict with WP:NOT#STATS. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? This whole page is an excessive listing of stats. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion of what you label as 'excessive'. To you, anything in addition to a listing of hitters with 3,000 hits or 500 home runs is considered 'excessive statistics'. Which isn't necessarily true, as many other users have attested. Katydidit (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's excessive because this article is entirely comprised of statistics without any context, and the sources provided fail to give it sufficient context to prevent it from being excessive. I'm sorry that other users aren't familiar with policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Everyone seems to agree that 2000 points is quite arbitrary. A list of the 100 players with most hits might make sense though. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment evidently not--nine editors have posted here and seem to disagree... so therefore "everyone" does not seem to agree. Your statement is putting undue weight on your argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2000 hits is too arbitrary, but top 100 is also too arbitrary. 3000 hits is where the notability is at. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Top 100 lists are very common, and although fundamentally just as arbitrary as any number, I think most people wouldn't feel that way. See Category:Top_lists --OpenFuture (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as statistics are encyclopedic. --143.105.11.99 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If all stats are encyclopedic, we'd have List of Major League Baseball players with at least one hit. We don't. Stats without context of notability are not encyclopedic, they are excessive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because your argument doesn't make any sense. We don't keep a page of statistics on players with minor numbers of hits or comparable ones in other categories. They have to be meaningful, and the 2,000 hits level is the first one that is meaningful and noteworthy. Whether or not a player makes the HoF with 2,000+ hits or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and is a red herring thrown out by users biased against any baseball listings outside of very small known HoF levels such as 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. 2,000 hits is also not the same as having a list of 1,000 or 1,500 hits as those levels are very common to those who have played less than 10 years. You can't say the same for those players with 2,000 hits because the average number of hits per year would then be 200 or close to that number, which is rare and noteworthy. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense and you've not responded to it but instead a straw man. Of course if notability is established for the 2000 hit club this article should exists. Throughout this article's entire history AND this AFD, however, no one has done that. No one has produced sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG that center on the overall grouping. This list does duplicate, in purpose, what 3000 hits does. It lists career hits leaders. If you can establish notability for this grouping in addition then great, keep it, but until such notability is established it is just an arbitrarily defined secondary listing of statistics. As has been said (and ignored by keep voters) the only time arbitrarily limited lists are allowable is where no established limitation exists. That is not the case for career hits, strikeouts, wins, or home run leader lists, which have well established career clubs. If a secondary grouping also draws focus there is a reason for a secondary list. If not, then not. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that throughout this article's entire history AND this AFD no one has established notability for the 2000 hit club. There have been multiple independent sources showing lists of players with 2000+ hits (one of which was attacked on the spurious grounds that the publisher included some subsidiary lists to fill out the space at the bottom of the page), numerous references to players joining the "2000 hit club", sources discussing 2000 hits as a factor in some players' Hall of Fame candidacies, and other sources stating that 2000 hits is a noteworthy milestone. I respect your opinion that all this doesn't make the milestone notable, but there is nonetheless plenty of evidence to support the opposite conclusion. Rlendog (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially all the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage of an individual achievement, not notability of the group overall. As has repeatedly been said every game summary notes a player's first MLB hit, but we do not have List of MLB players with one hit or List of MLB players' first major league hit. At best there are a few (17, 19, 20 above) that use the term 2000 hit-club as a way of describing that individual milestone. This is the purpose of NOTSTATS and ROUTINE, if every statistical mark described in game summaries warranted a Wikipedia article we'd have about 50 billion of these lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the key point here, and I just want to repeat it for emphasis: 2000 career hits is an individual milestone, and based on that, is insufficient for its own page. 3000 career hits puts you in a select group with unquestionable notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not routine coverage. A player's first hit generally is routine coverage.  It is a sentence within a game summary stating that player x got his 1st MLB hit.  But the references that have been demonstrated for 2000 hits have been full length articles about the player reaching 2000 hits, many (and what is listed here is just a small sampling as you well know - I'll provide more if that is what is needed) refer to a 2000 hit "club."  Hardly routine coverage.  And there are the independent lists of players with 2000+ hits, and the other coverage noted in my post above as well.  And no one is arguing that 3000 career hits doesn't put you in a select group with unquestionable notability. Just that 2000 hits puts you in a select group with plenty of notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not routine coverage in the context of the individual. That's why it should be mentioned at the player's page. I feel that in the context of say, how many players have achieved 2000+ hits in their career, it is routine, because it's not talked about in that manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just noting that I only relisted it because the day got archived without this being closed, so it would have went unnoticed forever. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was for the best. When I saw it close as keep, I was quite dismayed, because the issues in this AfD hadn't been hammered out. Some more third party reviewers could be helpful here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: This list is valuable as it helps readers understand the history of baseball and how present players compare to stars of the past. As a player moves up, it allows the reader to read about players he just passed. For example, "Derek Jeter just passed Frank Robinson. Who was he? Let me read about him..." and it thus allows the reader to get greater knowledge about the game and its greatness. This is not a list to delete. Arnabdas (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - You're objecting to everything listed at WP:NOT. --  At am a  頭 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To see that Derek Jeter passed Frank Robinson you have to memorize the list and it's order first, so you can notice the difference. Few people will do that, so that argument doesn't make any sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, WP:ILIKEIT. Personally enjoying an article does not make it notable or right for Wikipedia inclusion. I read any number of pages on Baseball-Reference that I find immensely interesting that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Quite honestly the first entry for my auto-complete when I start typing in B-R is this page. Incredibly interesting (to me), but absolutely 100% violative of NOTSTATS and the other various policies listed at this AFD. Ditto for this list. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand OpenFuture's comment. The whole point of having this list is to NOT memorize something. It's to find out more about an important aspect of the game. It's a portal. People can quote all sorts of WP guidelines as that is what guidelines are for-to guide us to decisions, but the point we have to ask ourselves objectively is that does this serve a purpose in an encyclopedia to help people understand the topic of baseball better. As a portal, it clearly does IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture was responding to your scenario that someone could use the list of stats to figure out that Derek Jeter had just passed Frank Robinson in terms of hits. To do that, of course, someone would have to memorize the list, then at a later date read the list again and notice that Jeter had just passed Robinson. In other words, you're attributing uses to this list of stats that aren't really feasible. If the article included evaluation of the list, for example if it pointed out that Jeter had just been raised in the rankings, then maybe your scenario would be plausible but that kind of analysis can't be included in a list that includes hundreds of people. Objectively, does this article serve a purpose to help people understand the topic of baseball better? Of course not. It's a list of people with more than 2,000 hits, and that's all. There is nothing that is being given to the reader to help them understand baseball. I feel that you're coming at this from a perspective of someone who enjoys baseball stats, but that interest doesn't fall in line with the scope of the Wikipedia project. --  At am a  頭 16:20, 12 May 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.