Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters


 * 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. Changing the length of the list is a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOT. There is no particular reason to use either the "top 500" or 135 HRs as a cutoff. In fact, we have a perfectly good list to describe the top home run hitters: 500 home run club. While I think this is similar in many respects to the ongoing discussion about List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits, that article at least has a distinct cutoff. This doesn't have one. Why "top 500"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The old Sporting News Baseball Record Book used 300 as the cutoff point for career achievement in home runs. That cut the size of the list down to 100+. Taking the top 500 seems excessive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very surprised that this page is being discussed for possible deletion. I use it all the time in baseball research to gauge new and old power hitters against each other. I probably visit this page 3-4 times a week. A cutoff of 500 people is not more or less arbitrary than a cutoff of 300 home runs. In fact, I evalute hitters with less than 300 home runs at least as often as those with more. Fortunately for me there is an alternative website I can go to ... http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Top_500_home_run_hitters_of_all_time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.232 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you can go to www.baseball-reference.com, or www.fangraphs.com, or www.thebaseballcube.com, or whatever stats site you want. Wikipedia is WP:NOT. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned about "Is it up to date?" and the more names it has, the harder it is to keep it up to date. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always use pages like Baseball Reference's career HR list. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also add that 'difficulty to maintain' is never a reason to delete, via WP:NOEFFORT. Many articles are somewhat out of date, but they get updated, often by new users.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's up to date? How do we know it's reliable? Have I said anywhere to delete it? No, I'm simply raising questions that need answering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 500, at its face, doesn't seem to be so indiscriminate.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But why not use 300 as the Sporting News uses (per Bugs)? Why not 400? Why not 1000? I don't see any discriminate reason 500 was chosen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 300 home runs, not 300 names. They were using what they considered to be a reasonable threshhold of achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. That still suggests that "Top 500" is overly inclusive and an excessive listing that violates NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't we be better served by having some external links to Baseball Reference (and/or Retrosheet, MLB etc...) on a few simple articles that deal with, perhaps, the top handful or so of "record" holders rather than a whole wealth of different lists/articles dealing with generally arbitrary statistical accomplishments? In any non-US sport this would be gone aeons ago. I have no doubt it'll be kept though - perhaps a wider discussion needs to take place about this sort of sports record article at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiment. That's part of the reason I nominated this article. We do have pages for the "main" recognized thresholds (ie., 500 home run club, 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club), but these simple counting lists are a problem. Perhaps a larger discussion is in order, at a RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - A list of all time leading home run hitters seems appropriate, and I don't think that inherently needs to be limited to the 500 HR club. Certainly 400 home runs is a notable accomplishment, maybe even 300 (especially given Bugs' comment).  Or maybe a top 50 or top 100.  But top 500 is too much.  A list of all time top home run hitters that includes the likes of Juan Uribe, Edgar Renteria, Ken McMullen, Andy Seminick and Bill Mazeroski (since we are talking about most home runs, not most famous home runs) is silly, and I think oversteps being indiscriminate. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete In some ways this is actually worse than the 2000 hits list I nominated, I just didn't want to start with this one as it has a greater following thanks to the labor needed to keep it updated. Clearly violative of WP:NOTSTATS as it's a pure statistical listing with no establishment of notability. And any claim as to why this list is set at 500 is madeup. It's at 500 because that's what baseball-reference listed on it's HR leader page at the time this was created, it's just a direct clone of that (they've now expanded to 1000). This list is also far more violative of WP:ROUTINE. At least 2000 hits is a milestone that gets mentioned for the individual in game summaries, the Ryan Braun's of the world do not even get individual mention for crossing this arbitrary plane. I also have the same issues I raised (arbitrary cutoff list on a subject, career HR leaders, that we already have a list with established notability for in 500 home run club). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is very useful and trustworthy. IMHO not too large or long. Happy138 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What gives it notability beyond 500 HRC? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It adds more information and is well-kept, followed and updated. Happy138 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those satisfies Notability. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Asinine nomination. If you don't like the threshold of inclusion, bring it up on the talk page and let's revise it as needed - that's an editorial deletion, not a grounds for deletion.  Keep. -- Y not? 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it "asinine" that I'm mentioning the arbitrary threshold of inclusion is evidence that this page violates WP:NOT and provides no more value that 500 home run club and external baseball stat sites provide? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not asinine at all. It would be asinine to AFD... List of highest paid Major League Baseball players purely over the cutoffs (20 people) because that is, as you say, editorial. This nomination is about an arbitrarily defined list that is secondary and supplemental to one that serves the same purpose but does so with a well-defined (and highly notable) cutoff. This list is more akin to List of highest paid Major League Baseball players (21-40) or something. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, slightly less asinine, but still pretty asinine because merging two overlapping lists is also an editorial decision. AfD is not your forum.  -- Y not? 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about "merging" them? This one simply shouldn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually think this is a very useful list. Alex (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Utility does not equal notability. The folks at B Ref and other sites update HR totals daily. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I like the idea, but the number of players should be much smaller. BUC (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... are we deleting or are we editing? Am I the only one here who perceives the difference between deletion and editorial decisions? -- Y not? 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Stax and I are quite clear in how this is a deletion issue and not an "editorial" issue. I disagree with BUC's reasoning for his delete. It doesn't matter how many players are listed, what matters is that this subject isn't notable, and that which is is subsumed by 500 home run club. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll change to Move and shorten to a smaller number of players. BUC (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: I thing it's great. Czolgolz (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But why should it be kept? WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I find it to be a very useful resource for rapidly changing baseball statistics. You know, the sort of thing you might look up in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Czolgolz (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is a thing one would find in an Almanac. Like the Sporting News source Bugs referenced. Encyclopedias are not full excessive listings of statistics, as per NOT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but shorten . I agree with Bugs.  The equivalent lists for triples and doubles use a number of triples/doubles as the cut-off, and that seems to make more sense.  It says to the reader that, e.g., 100 triples is a noteworthy achievement and this is a list of the guys who have done it.  On the other hand, many of the guys on the home run list will never be considered noteworthy as home-run hitters.  --Coemgenus 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this factors into your decision making, I'd like you to know that I'm highly likely to nominate those other lists (triples, doubles, total bases, walks, strikeouts, all of them) as violations of WP:NOT. Only recognized notable groups (3000 hits, 500 HRs, 300 wins, 3000 strikeouts, and if I can find enough sourcing for 300 saves, that one too) should remain. If you want to say 100 triples is a noteworthy achievement, that seems like WP:OR to me. Why set the number at 100? Are there sources to indicate why 100 triples is of importance?
 * The sources are clear. Notability for HRs in a career is 500. For hits, it's 3000. Wins is 300. Strikeouts is 3000. I believe there is enough for a cutoff of saves at 300, but I'm not sure about that one. The rest is all cruft that violates WP:NOT and should go. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case I'll just change to "keep" to keep the issues separate. --Coemgenus 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Editorial and deletion decisions should be separated from each other. But in saying keep, you're not telling me why this is notable, independent of 500 home run club. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I agreed with Bugs. A reliable source used 300 as a threshold, so that would meet your criterion.  But if you want all or nothing with this AfD, I'll put in my two cents for doing nothing.  --Coemgenus 17:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm not sure that one reliable source using a cutoff of 300 is sufficient, though. Especially as it is an almanac that doesn't confer why the topic at hand is notable. Notice that while Bugs made that contribution to this discussion, he hasn't voted one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 9 May 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.