Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball teams by population (2nd nomination)


 * 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 DELETE. The arguments for keeping reasonably assert that market size is relevant to baseball, but no one has supported that census-defined metropolitan areas are coterminous with team markets, such that census figures define market size, and none of the sources make this comparison either as Bagumba notes below. So although an article on defining and comparing baseball market size may very well be written, this list is an original synthesis. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball teams by population
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no reason to have a list of MLB teams by metropolitan population...population plays no significance in attendance, or stadium size C T J F 8 3  11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As the article says, "While population determines market size, The New York Times and the Cincinnati Business Courier commented that it is not directly related to fan support or team contention.[5][6]" Market size isn't everything; ask Billy Beane and Andrew Friedman. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear case of indiscriminate information, not an important or notable classification or categorization. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It could be better, but the fact that there are market studies on the business of baseball, and that members of the media are taking note of them, would seem to be notable in and of itself. Market size doesn't have to be everything, and I think that the fact that there are studies showing accomplishment in spite of having a small market shows that it apparently is something deemed worthy of study.  That said, I think that there's more that could be done with the article besides assembling the data, such as showing the 13 markets that don't have an MLB team, and looking at the television market data rather than (or in addition to) the SMSA information.  Sports marketing itself is notable, less fun, perhaps, than watching the sports themselves.  In Major League Baseball, of course, it's more important given that MLB has been slow in warming to the idea of revenue sharing among the teams, and the teams in the larger television markets are going to have more capital with which to work. Mandsford 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that "market size isn't everything" hardly shows that market size isn't important. I don't think there are any Wikipedia ordered lists that would satisfy the implied "this is the one-and-only determining factor test. The article could use a slightly more specific title, and it would probably be useful to identify those "missing" from the top 25 list, but this is an accurate, encyclopedic article related to a matter that is widely and reasonably to be influential in assessing the main subject. Neither unanimous belief in influence nor perfect evidence of correlation should be required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is zero discussion in this article about what market size does mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The same can be said about List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll. Maybe that's an argument for expansion, but not deletion. Some list articles include textual discussions, but it's not a requirement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That one could prob be deleted too, but more notable than this, as payroll directly relates to the team, their profits, ticket prices, etc, (I'd think), but metro size effects nothing it appears. C T J F 8 3  21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT. This seems to be very much akin to a comparison of William of Orange and Fiona Apple. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If market size of MLB team is important, then an article about that should be written. This list makes no sense to me because you can't rank teams by population. Team does not and cannot have population.— Chris! c / t 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:OR with misleading information based on non-verified synthesis. Anaheim Angels are in Orange County, California and not Los Angeles County as the Dodgers are.  Oakland and San Francisco are on two different sides of the bay in San Francisco Bay Area and are very distinct markets.  MLB also has a concept of territorial rights in terms of which markets are owned by specific teams, which could be confused with this article.  Being that there is no reliable source that combines the teams and Census population together, this is also WP:IINFO —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 31 March 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.