Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Halladay'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. SNOWy j &#9883; e deckertalk 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Roy Halladay's perfect game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The creation of this page smacks of WP:RECENTISM and I don't believe that it has its own notability that is independent of the articles 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and Perfect game. The current article text is merely copied from the former article, and I believe that it should be redirected back to there. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. I think it's better to redirect the page to Perfect game. Information about the perfect game is at 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and a little bit of information needs to be added at 2010 Stanley Cup Finals, as the Flyers played Game 1 of the series in Chicago the same night. Also, you may know that NBC replayed the final out during the first intermission report and the final innings coincided with the first intermission. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The hockey information, as previously stated in other forums, is not relevant to articles on baseball. It's a trivial overlap. Coincidence is not encyclopedic. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Roy Halladay. There are enough links from other articles  to make a redirect rather than changing the link to Roy Halladay.  We have a small number of articles in a Category: MLB perfect games, most of which happened in years beginning with "2".  Things like Mark Buehrle's perfect game are a classic example of what's discouraged in WP:NOT (the preferred method would be to simply link to a website like baseball-reference.com).  When it comes to sports articles, the usual response is to whistle and look the other way.  Mandsford 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep See Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game, which establishes the notability of perfect games. They are ridiculously rare - this was the 20th in MLB history, stretching back to the 1800s - and just because this was recent doesn't make it less historic. Add the fact that this was the second perfect game in a year (really there should be three). I will be expanding this with reliable sources, and man, are there plenty of them. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 19:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the comment above this one, Mandsford notes that the Buehrle's perfect game article is a violation of WP:NOT. Note also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for the notability of any given article. The AfD you reference does not establish notability for all perfect games, only for that article, and I think the result of that AfD could easily be contested in viewing that article in its current form. There is no reason that this information should be content forked from the two articles that it should be part of. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article itself is not a lump of statistics, now that I've removed a lot. In my opinion, Roy Halladay's perfect game is more notable than Buehrle's, since it was the second in one month, a feat that has never happened before. Note that Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game has been at AfD too, at Articles for deletion/Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. If you are wondering, that one was snowballed. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not a valid argument. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about Other Stuff Exists. What I am trying to say is that there is consensus, established at other AfDs, that perfect games are historic events, and that their coverage exceeds any run of the mill sports coverage. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Roy Halladay per Mandsford. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think perfect games are rare enough to have their own article. WP:NOT doesn't apply here as the article isn't pure stats. There are books written on indiviual perfect games, so they have lasting notability. Secret account 02:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mandsford. I participated in the Mark Buehrle perfect game AfD as a supporter of deletion.  I don't think these games deserve their own articles and I'm not the only one who feels that way. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WEDONTNEEDIT? Vodello (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Really, perfect games in baseball are incredibly rare, and this event is covered by enough reliable sources to warrant its own article. You can pound sand and scream WP:OTHERSTUFF just because you don't want potential voters to know for a FACT that this deletion rationale failed at Articles for deletion/Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game and failed at Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game. The delete votes so far have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT caliber. Vodello (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a "I don't think it's notable enough for a full article as opposed to mentions at other appropriate articles" argument. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello: 1) This is not a vote. 2) Other participants can read the linked discussions if they so choose, so no one is preventing anything. 3) I see no bold text ("screaming") except yours. 4) Comments like "The delete votes so far have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT caliber" could be uncivil. All things considered, I really do like this article, considering my loyalties. Just a thought.
 * Independent of my comments here, I still don't believe that independent notability has been generated without context within the season in which the game took place or the player's article. With improvement, perhaps there is a possibility for such notability to exist. However, that doesn't negate the fact that if this article turns into the Buehrle article, with box score after box score after stat line after stat line, it will, without a doubt, be violation of WP:NOT, as that article is right now. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I'll grant that Galarraga's game has independent notability based on the bizarre situation.  I don't see independent notability with the Buehrle page or this one.  Buehrle's could be a candidate for a second AfD in time. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (reply to Killervogel5) FYI, I removed most of the stat lines at Buehrle's page, and this page really doesn't have that much to begin with. A little stats are okay. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect and Merge with Roy Halladay. The Roy Halladay article isn't long enough that discussion of his perfect game in the main Roy Halladay article would make it too lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.109.14 (talk • contribs)
 * Really this article isn't a splitoff of Halladay's article. We do discuss it, yes, but some of the information in it would violate undue weight. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since perfect games are so rare, they receive a lot of coverage. Other prefect games are covered extensively throughout time. I see no reason that this one won't be in future discussions. Actually, it already is since he recently threw a no-hitter in the post-season. The argument that the article is not at the standards it could be is no reason to delete, it is reason to clean-up. I will say that the keep votes should shy away from the WP:WAX arguments and just focus on this article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well sourced, and the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The claim of "recentism" overlooks the fact that baseball historians regard MLB perfect games to be a notable and enduring part of the sport's history, as evidenced by detailed coverage in books published many years after the individual games occurred. I put together the following list of such books for Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game as examples:
 * Perfect: The Inside Story of Baseball's Sixteen Perfect Games (written in 2002) - a chapter is devoted to each perfect game in MLB history.
 * 27 Men Out: Baseball's Perfect Games (written in 2005) - similarly, a chapter is written on each perfect game.
 * 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.
 * My conclusion is that individual perfect games are part of the subject matter of baseball history, and are thus appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles. BRMo (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – I'm of the opinion that not every single lingle dingle no-hitter needs to have its own article (just because we can write a page that is well-sourced doesn't mean we need to, recentism aside), but definitely this one, being only the 2nd no-hitter/perfect game in MLB post-season history. It's kind of in a class of its own. –MuZemike 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article is about Halladay's perfect game on May 30. That no-hitter in the playoffs -- it was just a no-hitter. He issued a walk in the fifth. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The user never suggested they were both perfect games. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "...but definitely this one, being only the 2nd no-hitter/perfect game in MLB post-season history." I interpreted this to mean MuZemike thought this was about the no-hitter. That being said, I hope this has no affect on your opinion. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Individual single game articles for games of extraordinary importance should exist on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is hardly fulls of STATS and details a rare and very notable occasion for MLB. With that, the article goes beyond general notability and since the game itself is important, it warrants its own article. The implication of RECENTISM is invalid IMO. The perfect games that happen recently have more readily available sourcing and interest. Wikipedia is driven by people's own interest as well. Maybe interested editors will one day create articles for the other 15 or so perfect games.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantial coverage is present for notability, and this is a rare enough event that we shouldn't delete it under NOTNEWS grounds or something like that. Encyclopedias generally cover major events, and since we've judged that it's possible for specific games of certain sports to be major enough for coverage, I can't see why we should delete this on grounds unrelated to notability.  Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not many of these have been thrown, making it notable in the sports context. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is kind of important to have articles about the historic events, including perfect games. Roy Halladay's perfect game is the second perfect game thrown by a pitcher in 2010. First time that TWO perfect games were thrown in the same year since 1880. Editorofthewiki created and expanded to a great article, same user that he removed other info and play-by-play sections from Mark Buehrle's perfect game. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Roy Halladay. Bloated with marginally relevant tidbits to make this pose as a real article. The only legitimate section is "Game summary" and can easily be incorporated into his biography. Sadly, Wikipedia is far too polluted with articles like this.  Grsz 11  00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The game received ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources above and beyond that provided most typical games, and the claim of notability for the game is well-supported by the references provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure, lots of coverage that day after, the next day, but any evidence of prolonged notability?  Grsz 11  03:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep An event that has only occurred 20 times in 131 years is definitely notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, there is WP:RECENTISM. The solution to that is to create the fifteen missing articles, not to delete this one.  Regarding Grsz11's comment a couple of lines up, there's not time yet to demonstrate prolonged notability of this game, but BRMo's list shows it pretty well for perfect games in general. Matchups 17:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you! We shall create 15 more perfect games including Don Larsen's. Every time when there were perfect games in the future, then we shall make those articles within a day or two after that event. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close this really soon? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:12, 17 October 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.