Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Buehrle's perfect game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an article where some effort has been put into it. However, effort is not a criteria for keep. Wikipedia is not news. There are a lot of news articles but that's it. Little hint that this will be a long lasting event. This was proposed for merge but an editor removed the discussion so maybe delete is better. True, a few facts can be present in Mark Buehrle's article. Those who edit this article should not be offended. It's just that this article is too much news and a separate article is not needed. Otherwise, we could have an article for Hank Aaron's game where he batted the most RBI's then an article where he batted one more than that and one more than that. RIPGC (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor is a sock of a banned user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are only about 20 perfect games in MLB history; the event sparked a call from the President and recognition from the Governor of Illinois; and from a pure Wikipedia standpoint, we quite literally featured this in "Did you know" on Thursday, a sign of the article's quality! The notability and quality of this article make it good enough to stay for now. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 02:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The President makes a lot of calls. Calls of congratulations, calls to over 100 year old birthday (a few of which get news coverage).  The title of the article is very telling...it is a Mark Buehrle article, which doesn't have to exist as a separate game.  I am not going to or trying to fight over this one.  It's just an unusual game that is only news and news is not a reason to have an article.  There are lots of news stories that get a bunch of coverage then never again. Does this mean that there should be an article Randy Johnson's perfect game, which was the last perfect game.  Again, I'm not trying to fight.  If the consensus is a keep, Randy Johnson's article should be started! RIPGC (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: This is the only part of the article that might be kept...Mark Buehrle of the Chicago White Sox pitched a perfect game against the Tampa Bay Rays by retiring all 27 batters he faced on Thursday, July 23, 2009.  It was the 18th perfect game in MLB history and the 2nd perfect game in White Sox history. The last perfect game in MLB history was on May 18, 2004 when Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks pitched a perfect game against the Atlanta Braves at Turner Field. The last time the Sox pitched a perfect game was on April 30, 1922 when Charlie Robertson pitched it against the Detroit Tigers at Navin Field; that was the 5th perfect game in MLB history.  With the final out, the White Sox players ran onto the field, hugging each other. President Barack Obama called Buehrle to congratulate him on his perfect game.[11] Then his wife Jamie and her baby daughter Brooklyn came to the U.S. Cellular Field from the home in Missouri to congratulate Mark.[12] On July 29, 2009 Illinois Governor Pat Quinn declared July 30 "Mark Buehrle Day". RIPGC (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Forget Randy Johnson's perfect game -- we don't even have an individual article on Don Larsen's perfect game -- easily the most notable, famous perfect game in history, and probably the only one that might pass WP:NOTNEWS as one that has been subjected to lasting, non-trivial coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mark Buehrle and 2009 Chicago White Sox season. The event is notable, of course, but that does not mean a separate article is necessary or desired.  This can be described in these two articles without the loss of any valuable information. Resolute 02:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfect game. There should be articles on all of them. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mark Buehrle and 2009 Chicago White Sox season. Resolute basically sums up my argument. There's very good content in here but having separate articles on individual perfect games seems to me needless extrapolation and confusion. This is essentially (and, in my opinion, very clearly) a Wikipedia is not news issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- it's all properly sourced, mostly to reliable independent sources, relevant, well-written and interesting. There's really not a lot to fault with this article. Reyk  YO!  12:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mark Buehrle and 2009 Chicago White Sox season per the others. We don't have a standard that there should be articles for perfect games. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep What a nice reward for appearing on DYK: a deletion attempt. Bonus points for failing to notify the guy that expanded it the most, User:BlueEarth. I guess his hours and hours of work expanding this article doesn't qualify him to be even told this is taking place. It's a good article about a notable event that's very well-sourced. Vodello (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a single, notable event that received a ton of coverage when the event happened. As an event, it has literally no lasting impact on the world, and as a result has not been the subject of any sort of lasting coverage. Hence, WP:NOTNEWS. We have WP:NOTNEWS specifically for cases such as this, where an event can take on the appearance of notability because of a burst of news coverage when the event occurs. Look at the sources in the article -- they're all from July, 2009, with the exception of sources that are used to discuss other perfect games. I concur that it's full of interesting trivia, but it's essentially a news item. I think we should retain the strong work of BlueEarth and others through merging, rather than outright deletion, but I think WP:NOTNEWS excludes this as its own topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is an article I created and subsequently expanded with good sources. This article is about that game, highlights, aftermath, and statistics. I think I would nominate it GA. There are perfect game-related articles Sandy Koufax's perfect game and Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. So we should created articles for 18 more perfect games, including Charlie Robertson's, Don Larsen's, Randy Johnson's, Dallas Braden's, and Roy Halladay's. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can demonstrate continued non-trivial coverage of this game, and any of the above, I'll agree with you immediately. That non-trivial coverage of the Buehrle game appears to come to a complete halt within 2 weeks of the game's occurrence is clear (to me, anyway) indication of its transient notability. Wikipedia requires "enduring notability" for specific events to be included (per WP:NOTNEWS). I see no evidence of this game's enduring notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well sourced article; meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Evidence that MLB perfect games are of enduring notability, and thus are suitable for inclusion as exceptions to WP:NOT, is the fact that books have been written about them.  For example, see Perfect: The Inside Story of Baseball's Sixteen Perfect Games (written in 2002) and 27 Men Out: Baseball's Perfect Games (written in 2005). BRMo (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's solid evidence for keeping perfect game, but not Mark Buehrle's perfect game. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was intended to address the "not news" argument presented in the nomination. Wikipedia considers news events to be encyclopedic if they are non-routine and of enduring notability.  The two books I cited each follow a similar format, with a chapter devoted to each perfect game in major league history up to the time the book was written, including games that took place decades earlier.  Thus, while these books don't specifically address Mark Buehrle's perfect game (which took place after both books were written), they represent strong evidence that baseball historians consider individual perfect games to hold enduring notability.  If historians can write a chapter on each historical perfect game, it seems like a very reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article.
 * The fact that you support keeping (though merging) the content of this articles indicates that you agree that the game is of enduring notability and thus encyclopedic. Thus, it isn't surprising that the game is already covered, albeit in less detail, in several other articles including Mark Buehrle, 2009 Chicago White Sox season, and perfect game.  The issue whether to merge or keep a separate article is an editorial issue, not a deletion issue.  The guidance of WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH suggests that an article as long as this one (currently about 27K) is generally best kept as a separate subarticle rather than merged into a longer article.  For example, a couple of years ago I split Sandy Koufax's perfect game from Sandy Koufax in response to comments made when the latter article was in featured article review.  Unless you are suggesting removing a substantial portion of the article content, I don't think a merge would work well for an article of this length. BRMo (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is actually very short. If you remove the tables and the inning-by-inning play summary, you are left with "Broadcaster's Reactions" and "Aftermath." This is obviously merge-able. Additionally, I am frustrated by your attempt to argue that a merge argument is equivalent to acknowledgement of the requisite "enduring notability" required by the GNG. This is obviously untrue. A merge argument acknowledges that there is verifiable information in this article that should be saved. It does not in any way suggest any kind of "enduring notability," and I would counsel you not to put words in peoples' mouths, particularly when the words you are inserting are in direct contradiction to the explicit purpose of the other person's argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I was "putting words in peoples' mouths," I apologize. The rationale for my statement was that What Wikipedia is not is a content guideline; that is, it applies not only to the creation and deletion of articles, but also to their content.  Thus, my reading of the guideline is that if we agree that the information in this article is actually indiscriminate in nature, it would suggest not including it at all in Wikipedia.  But I guess the guideline is subject to other interpretations, so if you wish to interpret it as having more to do with article creation and deletion, that's fine.
 * What seems more compelling to me, however, is the clear evidence that baseball historians do consider individual perfect games to be of enduring notability as evidenced by the many in depth discussions appearing in books written long after the games take place. In addition to the two books on perfect games that I cited earlier, using Google Books I found several more books that discuss individual perfect games in depth (though I admit I haven't actually read most of them):
 * Unhittable: Reliving the Magic and Drama of Baseball's Best-Pitched Games - it covers more than just perfect games, but scanning through the index it appears that it devotes several pages to each perfect game in baseball history;
 * The Perfect Yankee: The Incredible Story of the Greatest Miracle in Baseball History - a detailed retelling Larsen's perfect game; one chapter provides shorter summaries of the other perfect games in MLB history;
 * Perfect: Don Larsen's Miraculous World Series Game and the Men Who Made It Happen - another detailed discussion of Larsen's game with bios of the men who played in it;
 * Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy - this one I've actually read - Jane Leavy devotes 48 pages of her biography of Koufax to a detailed retelling of his perfect game and its impact;
 * Perfect I'm Not: Boomer on Beer, Brawls, Backaches, and Baseball - I don't have much info on this autobiography by David Wells, but judging from the title and the editorial reviews on Amazon, his perfect game appears to be a centerpiece of the book.
 * I'm sure I could find more, but I think these citations provide strong evidence that baseball historians regard perfect games as a notable and enduring part of baseball's history. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that having linescores, boxscores, other info, and play-by-play in an article about historical MLB games is important. The linescore is the number of runs scored by inning, number of runs, hits, and errors throughout the game for each team. Underneath the linescore is pitching decisions, save (no save not listed), and home runs (no home runs not listed). The boxscore include batting and pitching stats to learn readers about batting and pitching performance is throughout the game. They also list other info about how's the weather, umpires in all infield positions, how long the game lasted, number of fans in attendence, and what stadium they played in. Also under other info, they list how many pitches and strikes each pitchers thrown and how many groundouts and flyouts (even including lineouts, foulouts, and popouts) allowed, as well as special events to the batter, such as HBP, balks, and pickoffs. Play-by-play is the result of every batters throughout the game. The number of pitches and pitching account are also shown for each batter. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's important information, and am very familiar with the particulars of baseball scoring (I'm an obsessive fan of the game and of its analysis), but it's not particularly encyclopedic. One would expect to find such information at Baseball Reference or similar, not in an encyclopedia. It's an overly exhaustive amount of detail. This is, however, more or less beside the point. In Wikipedia, size doesn't matter, and it certainly has no bearing on an article's enduring notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - That's a pretty little piece of sports history. Nice work. Carrite (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is claimed that Wikipedia is not a "news website", however you have thousands of news stories on your site that do not have this "up for deletion" tag at the top of the page. For Example, is Rodney King not essentially a news story?  He was the victim of police brutality and excess force, and it was captured on tape.  That is all he is known for.  If that is not a news story I do not know what is.  Maybe we should list every single incidence of police brutality as separate articles, since Wikipedia does not consider them news stories.  There are only 20 perfect games in history.  Why can they not be listed as an article?  They are not "news stories", they are achievements of a lifetime that are ridiculously rare in the scope of baseball.  Some teams have 10,000 losses in their time as a ball club, and there were only 20 losses in MLB history that were perfect games.  If this is not "encyclopedia" worthy, then nothing is and Wikipedia is a complete fail altogether.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.155.75 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article.. I didn't know there was a perfect game article for Sandy Koufax.  That should've been included with this AfD.  As for Rodney King, maybe it should only be an article about the beating and that should be AfD'd as well.  Who knows?
 * It's clear to me that the best rationale in this AfD is that of Ginsengbomb. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Rodney King is a perfect example of a news item that achieved the "enduring notability" required in order to pass WP:NOTNEWS. There is enduring coverage of the Rodney King beating. It sparked massive riots that resulted in the destruction of millions of dollars of property, an enormous criminal trial, the launching of a famous phrase ("can't we all just get along?"), etc. The two events could hardly be less alike in terms of their notability. Note how the Rodney King article has sources that were written as recently as 2009 -- almost twenty years after the event. This can be easily contrasted with coverage of Buehrle's perfect game, which literally stops two weeks after the game. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia also incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This is exactly the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized sports almanac. Per WP:5, keep. -Atmoz (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge After careful consideration, I now believe a merge is the best and most fair thing to do. Merging abides by WP rules while a keep violates them, particularly news.  In 2011, there will be no mention of this game.  Rodney King is mentioned occasionally.  Also Rodney King's beating started riots, so he has long lasting effects.  This game has no long lasting effects.  Long lasting is a criteria for deciding keep or not. RIPGC (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * General Comment With the exception of the book volunteered by BRMo above, to me it seems that every argument being advanced could also be used to support the inclusion of an individual article on every baseball game ever played, insofar as baseball games are inevitably the source of multiple, non-trivial reports in reliable sources, and insofar as "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers" might include such exhaustive detail. The "Rodney King" argument above is a perfect example to my point. Rodney King's beating was a news event that has such enduring coverage that it's still being written about almost 20 years later. This can be contrasted with Buehrle's perfect game, the article for which has no coverage written after July, 2009, when the game happened. If that isn't non-enduring notability, I don't know what is. The "book argument," however, is somewhat interesting. I tend to think more that it supports the notability of perfect games in general, rather than any particular game (the subject of the above books is perfect games, not any particular perfect game, even if they do cover particular perfect games), but it makes sense as an argument and I appreciate that it attempts to argue that perfect games are an exception to WP:NOT, rather than simply ignoring WP:NOT altogether, as most of the other keep arguments advanced above seem to do. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NOT does not apply to an event that still receives significant coverage today in books and articles. We're trying to senselessly destroy a well-sourced, good article with repeated significant coverage in many forms of media even today and quoting irrelevant policies will not fool any competent closing nom. Phil Bridger and BRMo's sources should remove any notion of this false assertion of a failure of notability. Vodello (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mark Buehrle. I cannot see why this cannot be in that article. –MuZemike 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article, in my opinion, easily meets the general notability guidelines. The argument that there is no current coverage shouldn't matter. Notability is not temporary. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As it has occured only 20 times in over 120 years, I'd say it's notable enough. Plus, we already have articles on Sandy Koufax's perfect game and Galarraga's near perfect game. Saberwolf116 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-term notability is shown by the fact that this game has attracted coverage in these nearly 200 news articles in 2010, and is already getting into books. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (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.