Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball record breakers by season


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball record breakers by season

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

What the heck is this list? Apparently records were only broken in 1897, 1932, 1961, and then every year from 95-09? And what purpose does it serve anyways, it's just grouping up information that belongs at the individual pages. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This list does meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for lists. All information is either currently sourced or is easily sourceable. It is just an incomplete list. It is noteworthy; others to keep such info. For example, Topps has made cards each year (or at least they did in the past) showing record-breakers of the past year. This is because it is a huge job to complete the list and it takes the work of more than one person. I started it, but I do not have time to do the whole thing. The solution would be not to delete it, but to add to it. Hellno2 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicates lists such as List of Major League Baseball single-game records, Major League Baseball record holders, List of Major League Baseball single-season records, and a number of other similar lists. I see no reason for a chronological listing of each time every one of the particular records was surpassed (which would involve a much more extensive listing, both backward and forward in time, than is presented here). This seems to me to be a case in which the guideline of WP:SALAT is overstepped. Deor (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments in favor of keeping:
 * Stand-alone lists #4 states chronological lists are currently used on Wikipedia
 * There is a section on that page Stand-alone lists that specifically states how they should be written. If this is written here, they must be permitted.
 * WP:L says "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial"
 * WP:L says The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
 * This list is incomplete and is even marked appropriately as such by a template. And there is no deadline for its completion. The Heymann Standard can be invoked here on the basis that the materia is notable, verifiable, complies with an official policy, and there is a desire or others to se the content
 * Even if no one works on it for some time, per WP:NOEFFORT, this is not a valid reason for deletion.
 * WP:SALAT, as Doer has stated above, says nothing specific against this list. It does not specify a limit to the number of lists Wikipedia can hold, and in fact, it is so vague. Doer specifically said "*I* see no reason for a chronological listing of each time every one of the particular records was surpassed . . . This seems to me . . ." This is just a personal point of view of being useless.

Hellno2 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like an attempt to unnecessarily duplicate information to me. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Duplicate articles redirects to Help:Merging. This, alone, indicates that duplicated articles should be merged, not deleted.
 * User:Muboshgu has not cited any policy, guideline, or essay showing a duplicate article should be deleted, or any policies, guidelines, or essays for that matter, but just used the subjective term "seems like" and the POV terms "unnecessary" and "to me" (see WP:ATA).
 * WP:BEFORE #2 says Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic... Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered. This article is imperfect, as this states, and is awaiting further development.
 * WP:BEFORE #4 says Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. merging is normally what is done in the event an article provides duplicate informtion. Someone, instead, should be placed the merge tag at the top to suggest a merge, or boldly merged it, if he felt it was duplicate.
 * WP:BEFORE #10 says Please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. 

Hellno2 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think arguments based on duplication aren't really accurate. They don't include the date information in the same format, so this presents new information.  Incorporating full date information onto existing records wouldn't be inherently useful as the more chronological form.  Other than duplication, there is no convincing policy reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hellno2, who makes a very well-reasoned defense. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (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.