Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maris-McGwire-Sosa pair


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Maris-McGwire-Sosa pair

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has not asserted any notability that i can see. It seems to be an advanced sabrmetrics or statistics page with little to no use here. It could even be viewed as WP:TRIVIA Tecmobowl 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless trivia, fancruft. P.S., I like your username.  Useight 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article is about mathematics. That the name is the only connection it has to baseball, and is utterly unrelated to the players themselves. It's not baseball trivia, it's math. Coverage such as here shows that this is taken seriously as a math topic. Alansohn 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Math, not baseball. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, more of a mathetmatical game than a serious math topic, but I added a book reference.--Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe I correctly identified this as a statistics / sabrmetrics related article in my initial statement. If this content is valuable to the community as a whole, then does it really deserve it's own article?  Again, while it is mathematically true, it seems trivial and not worthy of its own article on wikipedia. //Tecmobowl 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, this has nothing to do with baseball stats (or SABRmetrics) except the name/discovery. It is mathematically interesting that two such numbers might be paired, which is why it has some notability. It's not a major mathematical topic but I think it meets minimum standards for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times do i have to say that I am aware of why this article is in place. It is related to SABRmetrics, but is a statistics article.  We're good on that...stop bringing it up.  I reviewed WP:NUMBER and a related (but not really applicable) WP:PROF before making this request.  It would seem that it is reasonable to delete this article.  Perhaps another opportunity would be to merge it, but i don't know where to put it and since it seems to be un-notable, I would say get rid of it all together. //Tecmobowl 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sabermetrics is defined as "the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics. The term is derived from the acronym SABR, which stands for the Society for American Baseball Research." This article is about number theory, which in turn is defined as "branch of pure mathematics concerned with the properties of numbers in general, and integers in particular, as well as the wider classes of problems that arise from their study." I understand why there is such confusion here, as the name given to this number pair mentions baseball players and arose from numbers of home runs. But this is a matter of pure mathematics that has absolutely nothing to do with who is the better home run hitter or any issue to do with baseball statistics in any way whatsoever. It is NOT related to Sabermetrics and it is NOT a baseball statistics article. This article has nothing to do with the sport of baseball, and everything to do with the world of mathematics. Alansohn 13:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion here. You guys keep talking about that we all know: THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT MATH (or statistics or whatever the hell you want to call it). THAT DOESN'T MATTER!  What matters is my claim that it does not meet the NOTABILITY guidelines. //Tecmobowl 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. References demonstrate sufficient notability. No connection with baseball statistics apart from name - like Ruth-Aaron pairs. Could someone who knows how to change cats on AfDs please move this from Games or sports  sub-cat to Science and technology, where it belongs. Gandalf61 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the topic. I marked it as G because it seemed like a mathmatical game.  Regardless, this is the first comment that sufficently address the topic.  I still don't agree with notability, but at least we have a well constructed argument here. //Tecmobowl 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, definitely not a candidate for outright deletion. Multiple sources on the article and . p.s. I couldnt find an appropriate delsort list for this, so I have commented instead. John Vandenberg 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep mathematical result, not fancruft. Thinly cited, but entry on Sloane's integer encylcopedia is helpful to show notability. Debivort 06:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not that I necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but an OEIS entry should not be used as any indication of notability. They will accept any sequence as long as long as it is not utter garbage.  They don't accept sequences based on a preformed notion of whether it is important, useful, etc.  --C S (Talk) 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakest Keep: the Ivars Peterson article gives the independent notability that the Keith articles and OEIS pages do not (as Chan-Ho has pointed out, they accept most sequences). However, I think better would be to Merge with Ruth-Aaron pairs which they are similar to (mathematically) and derived from (in name and inspiration). (It's only a weak consideration in an AfD, but are the Maris pairs actually mathematically interesting to anyone other than Peterson and Klein? The sum of digits is such an arbitrary consideration and makes the sequence dependent on base 10). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I have just moved the article from Category:Integer sequences to Category:Base-dependent integer sequences. Many laymen and hobby mathematicians are interested in numbers with special base-10 properties although Maris-McGwire-Sosa pairs seem to have attracted little attention. Ruth-Aaron pairs are more notable and were named by Carl Pomerance who has published papers about them. They are not base-dependant and I'm not sure it's good to mix them with Maris-McGwire-Sosa pairs. PrimeHunter 13:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If Ivars Petersen has cited it, it has value. Johnbibby:::


 * 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.