Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the last surviving players who played in a World Series


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

List of the last surviving players who played in a World Series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per the precedent of Articles for deletion/List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members (2nd nomination), this is unsourced, trivial, original research, and therefore not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If sources are a major issue, citations to each player can be added for Baseball Reference.  Other than that, this definitely deserves to stay along with plenty of the other baseball articles that seem trivial or contain some original research.  We're talking about the World Series here, that's not trivial at all.  The World Series is definitely notable and the last survivors from historical events is notable so the combination really solidifies its notability.  There's plenty of articles that may seem trivial to some but are very valuable to others.  Not to sound generic, but if we deleted everything that took some original research, readers would really be missing out of plenty of beneficial and accurate content.  The notability should not be in question, especially to for a baseball fan.  The precedent is weak as well; "oldest hall of famers" compared to "last world series survivors".  Outside of baseball and some ages I see nothing more than an attempt to liken both of them as the previously discussed "trivial".  I would be shocked if other baseball fans, or anyone for that matter, thinks this article should be eradicated.  This article is brand new and it can be improved with some references.  I think it's a good start and eventually this could be a great list. RoadView (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: RoadView (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can see a lot of effort went into this, so I am a little sorry to have to vote for a delete, but this is original research.  Note that the issue is not whether the information itself is verifiable, but whether the topic itself has received coverage in reliable sources.  If it has not, then this is a work of synthesis with no clear notability. Indrian (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article may be accurate, but no evidence has been provided that sportswriters, sports fans, etc. take particular notice of who is or was the last survivor of each World Series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial, no real-world significance of surviving World Series participants. Show something on par with the demonstrably notable survivors of major wars and you'll have something.  Tarc (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that this list meets Wiki standards for inclusion, but it's an interesting list nonetheless. I lean toward Delete but I'm not going to vote yet. As I'd hate to see the list disappear completely, I would suggest that the list creator recreate it over at Baseball-Reference Bullpen, where this sort of list is more likely to be welcomed (and kept). — NY-13021 (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original research. BRMo (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, I respect that my effort put into this article has been acknowledged. Second, as far as adding this to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen, if it were just as easy as copy and paste I would do, but a lot more work is needed which means I will not be able to get around to at the current time.  In regards to it being labeled trivial; I can't stress enough how not trivial it is. The last living person from a popular once a year championship series with players from around the world is not notable?  Maybe for some that might be the case, but also for some the last survivor of a war or the tallest building might be.  Notability is subjective but this isn't even borderline in my opinion.  There's no need to target this as trivial just because it's not of utmost importance.  There's nothing to lose by leaving this article alone just because it doesn't have universal appeal.


 * So basically this comes down to verifiability/original research. I concede that I had to check which player was the last surviving and that even if cited that players bio on BR, this would still be labeled as original research.  That's the part that perplexes me.  If we needed precise verifiability for every entry on every list then we should be deleting a whole lot more.  Take List of largest hotels in the world, if I look at most of those entries, there are no citations and I don't know if 1 is missing or not.  Or List of Vice Presidents of the United States by age of ascension, it takes several clicks to verify if these are correct as no direct citations are provided.  How about Oldest living United States governor or Earliest serving United States governor? Again it looks as if a reputable Wikipedia editor in good faith could not find direct sources but saved us the time by compiling a list for us that we could verify on our own if needed, albeit with a lot more clicks.  All these lists have similarities to the article currently in question, so why is this one that much worse that all of those? It's not.  I am not at all in favor of original research when it comes to opinions or in not list articles.  But when it comes to lists, sometimes it does take a little bit more effort and a little less direct verifiability to make them, but they are every bit as welcome and informative in my opinion.  Wikipedia is about what the users want and if my article is admired, but still deleted only on account of some, but not entirely all, original research, then something is very wrong here.  If you like the list but feel it should be deleted based solely on following the verifiability then you should advocate for an amendment in policy regarding original research.  Established Wikipedia editors creating list only articles should be given a little extra room for research.  So much would be lost if we rid Wikipedia of all lists without exact verifiability.  I would be completely disgusted after all that I mentioned, that this list only article gets deleted.  Enough baseball editors know this this list is beneficial and accurate so perhaps they should have more weight on arbitrating an exception because they can attest to it's accuracy.


 * Not to be repetitious, but in conclusion, so many other lists, so many instances of no direct verifiability, so many lists that are not deleted, this list should be no different. Sometimes it's the only way to present informative content.  There should be certain exceptions and hopefully you feel that policy should be amended in some way to allow for such exceptions if you still can't bring yourself to supporting this article.  Thank you. RoadView (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Baseball Reference Bullpen may be the place for this list. If you can't finish it to get it on their wiki before this AfD closes, I suggest you copy it to your userspace, so you can work on it there. If you need more information on what that is and how to do it, feel free to ask. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Baseball-Reference Bullpen uses the same Wiki style and coding as here. I bet you could have copied-and-pasted the list to B-R Bullpen in about the same time you took to write the very long comment above. — NY-13021 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete With all respect to the author, whether many of us find the list interesting or not has nothing to do with whether it belongs in an encyclopedia - coverage of this idea in reliable sources is what establishes the notability of a list, not the opinions of any of us. As to the irrelevance of other lists, well, there are a lot of other lists that should also be deleted - makes no difference to this argument. I hope you find another home for your research. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:LISTN, as it has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources."—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well I can see I have gotten nowhere. I tried to copy this to BR Bullpen but the formatting was incorrect and it would have taken some work to make it look presentable.  I would rather plead my case here than work on something I just worked on.  I really hope everyone sees my point of view on this.  I saw plenty of original research and questionable lists on Wikipedia so I figured I can get in on it and there wouldn't be a problem.  Then, to have other articles not come under any scrutiny, yet to have mine deleted is baffling and unfair.  I never would have made this if I didn't see other lists with indirectly verifiable content.  So there is precedent for my list and it does matter that other lists appear to have plenty of original research or verifiability issues and have not been deleted.  I am personally a big fan of some of the lists I've seen on here and I want the vast majority of them to stay, but it is hypocritical for this list to have so much opposition and others to seemingly be given a pass.  There's a time and a place for exceptions, and original research needs to be modified, just a little, to allow some of this great content to see the light of day.  I hope my comments were carefully considered and not just disregarded. I'm curios to know exactly what kind and how much coverage this topic or each entry would need to be allowed to stay.  I've said about all I can say.  It's such a shame to have received no support on this.  Unless something extraordinary happens, the users have spoken, and have made it clear that original research is enough for this article, but not others, to be erased. RoadView (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything you said might be true, but it looks like you're going to lose this AfD barring a last-minute miracle. People cut-and-paste things from here to BR Bullpen (and vice versa) all the time, so it's odd you ran into problems. I hope you've saved a copy of the page to your computer and/or find the time to post it at BR Bullpen. I believe it will get a warmer welcome over there. — NY-13021 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do have a backup of the article if someday this kind of stuff is welcome. I have found a couple scattered sources that mention a couple of the last surviving players, which makes me wonder how much needs to be covered for the article to be allowed.  As for BR Bullpen, I'm not sure why it's messed up when I copy and paste.  I'm thinking some of the templates don't match up, also parts of the poorly formatted table could be an issue.  It's just frustrating to work on something again after I already spent a lot of time on it once. RoadView (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2012 (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.