Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is based on original research. The topic of which MLB players lived the longest isn't covered in secondary sources, at least not to the point where the subject would become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the reasons it was kept the first times. Alex (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason it was kept last time, over four years ago, seems to fail WP:INTERESTING. I don't understand why it was kept. It is a blatant example of overcategorization, as a trivial intersection of two unrelated facts (MLB experience and age). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep keep Individual editors should not decide what is useful or considered trivial--Tommieboi (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I check this page evewryday...I am an avid baseball autograph collector and thius page is a great resource tool...It is one of the few reasons I visit wikipedia...Thanx for the voice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.48.153 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think it matters if you check it "everwryday", the article must meet the general notablility guideline to be kept. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And comments like that are overwhelming in the first AfD debate. Again, it's not a reason to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Legitimate list, whose accuracy is not reasonably subject to question, of general public interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep while interesting and useful are not reasons to keep the article, I don't see the original research or meeting any of the criteria of WP:LIST for deletion other than the interception of age/baseball, and those age lists unless it's something really unmaintainable or non-notable like List of oldest living doctors, consensus is usually to keep these pages. The last AFD I would have closed as no-consensus while there was way too many flawed keeps, "listcruft" isn't a reason for deletion neither. Secret account 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I stated the first time around, the information is highly relevant for baseball fans, and it is often front page news. (as it was on ESPN.com when Rollie Stiles died). The information is useful to baseball historians and easily verifiable. EnjoysButter (talk) 18:37, 26 September 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.