Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National League slugging percentage leaders


 * 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 with merge at editorial discretion. Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

List of National League slugging percentage leaders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTSTATS. This entire article is an excessive listing of statistics with a modest lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have literally oodles of lists of parallel stats.  There is nothing inappropriate as to having a year-by-year list of such accomplishments.  We have them for annual leaders in triples, bases on balls, stolen bases, batting average, doubles, home runs, runs, runs batted in, saves, shutouts, strikeouts, triples, wins, earned run average, innings pitched.  While this list is deemed "excessive" by nom, it has no more statistics than any of those lists of baseball statistics.  WP:NOTSTATS relates to lists that are excessive, and inasmuch as this is not one, that guideline does not apply.  Furthermore, while it is true that, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader, this is already done--there is no requirement that more than that be done.  If nom thinks more should be done, any of us are free to do it -- but surely it is do-able, and therefore the article should not be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Slugging percentage. No need to fork a list of MLB leaders given how short both articles are. Resolute 14:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given nom's concern that the list is "excessive", perhaps it would not be in his view helpful to merge it into slugging percentage. In any event, in the many parallel lists that I point to, this is not the standard wp approach -- rather, we tend to have one article for "x", and another article for "x leaders".  So,perhaps it would be best to maintain the standard approach, for the sake of consistency in presentation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a notable statistic and a list of annual leaders is appropriate. It may be appropriate to merge with a similar American League list, if one exists (I didn't check).  I do not think that Slugging percentage is necessarily a good merge target, because then that article may get overwhelmed by statistics, including the annual leaders and all time leaders (and in theory at least, the slugging percentage is general and can apply to other leagues as well, including outside the US).  But merge to slugging percentage would still be preferable to deleting. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perfectly fine as a standalone list, not "excessive" in any way. I'd support a merge with a corresponding AL list, but not with Slugging percentage. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it'd be nice to see the list converted into a sortable table, if anybody has time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Hit's points. The only hesitation I have about merging to a corresponding AL list would be that if nom feels this list is "excessive" (which I don't think is the case), perhaps he would consider such a merge to be the creation of a list that is twice as excessive.  Also agree that a sortable table would be nice (but do not think that is an AfD issue, as I believe Hit would agree).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a unanimous keep outside of my nomination, so I wouldn't object to that merge. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look, Muboshgu, and being kind enough to consider the views of the rest of us. Very much appreciate that.  As to whether a merge is a good idea, I would suggest that we follow whatever approach we use in the other parallel categories I mention above (annual leaders in triples, bases on balls, stolen bases, batting average, doubles, home runs, runs, runs batted in, saves, shutouts, strikeouts, triples, wins, earned run average, innings pitched).  Haven't checked myself whether we generally have merged lists, or League-specific, but I would go with whatever the accepted pattern (or consensus) is.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 24 June 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.