Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Obscure Baseball Records


 * 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 Computerjoe 's talk 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Obscure Baseball Records
Completely trivial, not particularly useful. BoojiBoy 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Obscure records themselves are not notable, but a list is quite useful if it contains many. Allow this one to grow. CJC47 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because they do cite some sources. This could be particularly useful to baseball fans, and its not like baseball only has a cult following or small number of fans. I think this could get expanded. Keep. Allisonmontgomery69 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this looks a bit silly, not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Any info that went on the page could be sourced/verified and would be encyclopedic, so that's not my problem. I don't have any deletion rationale except that I don't think this list will ever be found by anyone aside from those browsing AfD, and thus, will probably expand very little (if at all). If I saw more than one fun fact on the page (the Liriano thing isn't as rare as it seems), I might change my mind. -- Kicking222 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know enough about the subject to cast an informed vote either way, however if kept the title of the article needs to be changed, as the term "Obscure" is a POV statement in this context. By whose authority are these records considered "obscure"? The creator of the article, or a reference work? You see the problem. 23skidoo 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I was about to say I thought this should be kept, but 23skidoo makes a really good point here. How does one decide what is "obscure" or "obsure enough" to make the list. There could be literally thousands of random factoids that could be included here. I guess I could be swayed either way here, but not unless it gets expanded greatly. Having two items does not make it very valuable right now IMO. DrunkenSmurf 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is only a couple days old and this article could grow into something useful. I would prod tag it and give it more time. Agne 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess thats my issue really, what exactly is it going to grow into besides a list of trivial facts that are not really of any importance? How obscure is obscure enough to get listed here? How does this list not turn into an indiscriminate collection of information? DrunkenSmurf 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As the article's creator, I'd like to make a case for it. I've heard all kinds of bizarre statistics and supposedly superlative occurrences in baseball, and I was thinking that it would be fun to see a list of them.  It seems like perfect trivia for a list page.  To respond to a couple points raised: First, I do think the article can be found via the categories listed at the bottom of the article.  In particular, somebody seeing what baseball lists are contained in Wikipedia might be intrigued enough to click on it.  Second, "obscure" is a somewhat subjective term, but baseball is so over-statistified that there will be clear cases of obscurity.  Every pitcher or hitter has a stat sheet with categories you'd expect to find, i.e., ERA, triples, RBI, etc.  The two examples I cited would clearly never be found on a player's permanent record, and likely were only discovered by sports commentators who have full use of highly specialized record-searching software.  I would say they are obscure almost by definition.  Third, as a couple users pointed out, the list will grow.  I was only able to think of two examples offhand, but this is something that will come up semi-regularly.  Baseball more than any other sport obsesses about statistics.  As a result, some pretty bizarre stats appear fairly regularly.  However, people who follow baseball are interested in them in spite of their obscurity.  I would say this legitimizes a Wikipedia list on the topic.  Finally, I did make a point to properly cite the examples I came up with, and would expect future entries to do the same.  Obscure statistics can usually be traced back to articles or sports punditry, so this list can grow legitimately.  If the worst that you can say about this article is that it looks "a bit silly," you're falling prey to the same subjectivity you accuse the article of containing.  Sparkyfry 17:56, 21 July 2006 (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.