Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Crushmore


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mount Crushmore

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable neologism. No catgories, only source is MLB official website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and it is a non-notable neologismus. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article contradicts itself, saying first that this is an honor (based on a poster, but maybe it was just computer wallpaper) for players who hit 600 home runs, but then that it was first established when McGwire and Sosa were both trying to break the record of 61 homers in a season. It looks like in 2002, right after Barry Bonds became the fourth player to break 600, someone at mlb.com made an illustration of four faces, kind of like Mount Rushmore, but it's four baseball players instead of four Presidents, and the short explanation is that they're on there because they were known to "crush" the ball (like "roundtripper", it's a seldom used synonym associated with hitting a home run) "more" than other MLB players.  Get it?  This was a year before the BALCO scandal gave a clue as to how Barry's homer production increased so dramatically in his 30s.  The speculation that this is an honor that has been discontinued is based on the assumption that a Mount Rushmore like monument wouldn't stop at four stone faces, I suppose.  The unimaginative expression has been used from time to time to describe four baseball players, but it also gets used to describe eyesores and four of anything else .  Mandsford 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Article on a neologism without any chance for relevant secondary sources and based largely on faulty or unprovable original research? No thanks.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 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.