Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 500 home run hitters of all time


 * 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 Speedy Keep. per WP:SNOW, I'm renaming this thoughJaranda wat's sup 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Top 500 home run hitters of all time
Please keep this page. I find the information on this page very useful! David

A great deal of hard work that has gone into this page; however, the page is useless. This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books. It does not add to the experience of wikipedia and it is annoying that it is has been placed on the see also section for so many baseball related pages. It is more the work of one or two people, rather than a true community page. Wolverinegod 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding counter-intuitive, keep per nom. The information is verifiable (per nom), and appears to be encyclopedic to a baseball ignoramus such as me. I'd be tempted to say that 500 is an astonishingly large number to have, but baseball fans seem to be pretty statistically-minded. The fact that the information is readily available elsewhere has nothing to do with anything, since that simply means that it's verifiable (if the info weren't readily available, I'd be thinking about nominating this). The fact that it's been placed all over the baseball pages is entirely beside the point too, as the nominator or anyone else is more than capable of removing it from places where it's not useful. The fact that it's "the work of one or two people" is also irrelevant, as not all articles here will ever be "true community pages". Additionally, if the information is readily available, it doesn't take more than one person to port it here. BigHaz 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and encylcopedic. Remove inappropriate see also links. MLA 10:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but pare down on the OR element that is before you get to the actual listing. 205.157.110.11 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Something like this is the reason for Wikipedia. We're a collection of useful information. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well to further my point: just because an article "can" exist doesn't mean it "should". This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". What exactly is "useful" about this listing. Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list, and therefor, there is no realistic control.  Where as, in order to be listed in order to be named as a member of the 500 home run club or people to climb mt. everest, you have to meet a standard.  Further to the point, this article would need to be referenced so often that it becomes   pointless to attempt.  See No original research.  Just because something is verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is), does not mean it needs to be included.  Putting a link to the see also section is technically admissable because it is often placed on a players page. Wolverinegod 12:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". &mdash; On the contrary, the criteria, per the article, seem pretty clear: Being one of the top 500 baseball players of all time, ranked by the number of home runs achieved. Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list &mdash; False. Please read the article title. verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is) &mdash; You are now contradicting yourself.  You stated in your nomination that "This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books.". Uncle G 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable, well written, encyclopaedic. While 500 may be a surprisingly high choice of cutoff, there's no point in excising information from an article just because it's surprisingly deep. WilyD 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as said above it is verifyable it just needs to be cleandup at the start. Tarret 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article is fantastic, frequently updated, and DOES NOT have an equivalent anywhere else on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.175.119 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 13:19:21
 * Keep - But the list could probably be trimmed down from 500 to like 300 or something for the sake of readability and scope. I mean Al Martin and Derek Bell make this list.  Isn't there a clause in WP:LIST that says, "No list may include Derek Bell in it"?  No?  There should be...  Wickethewok 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe instead of "articles for deletion" we should rename this section "articles for Operation Shutdown"... SliceNYC 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep easily. I can understand the notion that the list should be pared down a bit, but I agree with WilyD pretty much wholeheartedly. We've already AFD'd (is that a word?) a list which purported to list the Top 1000 home run hitters (a list which I think I might actually be on, along with Steven Hawking), so there *is* a limit to what is realistically encyclopedic but this list doesn't meet that criteria. I say leave it as is, it's very well written. In the interest of full disclosure I am an occasional contributor to the page and have been adding links to the page from the subjects on the list. - RPIRED 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hardly listcruft, which is the only reason I can see to delete, so keep. Batmanand | Talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BigHaz. The list is factual and seems well-maintained. Could the beginning prose use a little cleaning up? Sure, but that's no reason to delete a solid, encyclopedic list. SliceNYC 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MLA. Big  top  21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters; the "of all time" is superfluous, and the list seems geared to (exclusively) MLB hitters, because I didn't see Sadaharu Oh (868 professional career homers) or any other achievers outside of MLB such as the Japanese or any Latin American leagues, or any batter's school/little league accomplishments listed. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 30 August 2006 (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.