Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utility infielder


 * 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 All I am not convinced that a merge is the best solution, but a reasoned, consensus based merge discussion with greater participation would not be unappropriate for these articles. Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Utility infielder

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Unreferenced stub that is redundant to utility player. Should be merged to it. For the same reasons, nominating fourth outfielder and Corner outfielder, which are redundant outfielder. I will rescind this nomination if the articles are referenced and lengthed, much in the same way Cornerman (basketball) and Combo guard are for basketball Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 06:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the proper approach is for the nom to determine if it can be lengthened and referenced, much as it is the nom's responsibility to review for references that could be put into the article before nomination an article, and not only look at those that appear in the article itself.  These are such basic terms, widely used, that I support them having their own articles.  As to the criticism of the articles, the policy that comes to mind is SOFIXIT.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. If people create sloppy articles, it isn't automatically my responsibilty to clean them up (SOFIXIT currently links to BOLD; and the bold action here would have been redirection).  You talk about the references that appear in the articles themselves?  There are no references, which in itself can be a criteria for deletion.  I also contest your assertion that they are basic, widely used terms, because they just aren't.  In the baseball positions table, the "basic" positions are defined as catcher, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, RF, LF, and CF.  These are not basic positions.  You also don't address the redundency concern.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than waste much time on this, I'll let others share their views, and just address one of the various points Purple makes where I differ. He contests my statement that "utility infielder", inter alia, is a widely used term.  I believe that the 52,700 ghits, 29,600 gnews hits, and 700 gbooks hits support my statement.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Google hits doesn't necessarily mean notability...I got 16K hits for cheese pants
 * The hits are very small compared to the "basic" positions...DH and left fielder get 3-400K (8x) and first baseman gets over one million (20x)
 * Utility infielder and utility player are almost exactly the same thing; they don't need two articles, especially since one of them is an unreferenced stub. It's unbelieveable that you want to keep an article of such low quality  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You miss two points. 1) The reference to the 53,000 google hits was specifically to show that your assertion that the term is not widely used was incorrect.  That is all.  As I said, so as not to waste time, I sought only to address that markedly incorrect assertion.  2) As to the quality of the article, the onus is on the nom to ascertain if there are not refs from which a proper article could be written.  The test is not whether it has already been written.  Articles, for which sufficient refs exists (if added by the nom or someone else, though there is a special onus on the nom to explore this before the nomination) need not be deleted or redirected.  Rather, you are welcome to fix it.  But AfD is not a tool for you to force others to do so.  Happy Tuesday.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is still redundant and a stub. Your "I have to fix it" argument is completely bunk.  I should have redirected it.  In case you missed it, my vote is strong redirect.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep All of this excess bold is really making my eyes hurt, besides being unnecessary. That said, the article as is needs to be referenced, but that's easily accomplished, as there are quite a few works out there that reference the topic. AfD isn't the appropriate forum for this; it should have been tagged for cleanup instead. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Four references now in the article, fully formatted. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourth outfielder and corner outfielder are still unreferenced. And I still don't see any reason why the articles shouldn't become sections of Utility player and outfielder, instead of the short, redundant stubs they are now.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't do all of them at once! It's not like this is just some kind of slapdash process. They shouldn't be part of the articles you name because they are distinct parts of a whole, just like first baseman and second baseman shouldn't be part of infielder. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourth outfielder also now has four references, and there is an entire Baseball Digest article on fourth outfielders as one of them, so it can easily be expanded. That's a definite keep. I know that I can find references for corner outfielders as well; just can't do it now. Also, please keep in mind, when you're using the word "stub" derisively, that "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion". That is what these are. They don't provide a lot of coverage right now, but they are certainly capable of expansion in the future. Just so happens that a lot of us are a lot busier with other projects than we are with our utility position articles. If you want to help, why not expand the article instead of saying it needs to be merged to a tangentially related topic? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, I don't think it's just tangential... Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's part of a whole. If we were ever to do a featured topic on outfielders, all of the types, including left fielder, center fielder, right fielder, corner outfielder, and fourth outfielder would all be part of it. All of those articles are distinct and separate topics and that's why they are separate articles. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Agree whole-heartedly w/all Killer said. Encourage nom not to (ab)use this process in the future for articles that only need clean-up -- he should either fixithimself in the future, or tag it as Killer mentioned.  AfD is not appropriate.  For that reason, these would have been keeps whether or not Killer did his good work -- keep votes were not dependent on the refs being added.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, you've voted and commented now. Secondly, you forget I nommed them as well because of their utter redundency, not just because of their refs.  If you really think I've abused the process, ANI me  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you have commented six times; not sure what the relevance of that is. I would urge you to withdraw the nomination, to save others wasted time.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will withdraw it if five people vote keep. As of now, the vote is 2-1.  It's no landslide, and there are perfectly acceptable arguements for its merger  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Setting arbitrary criteria don't really do you any good, because it's not up to you. It's up to the closing administrators. Since the articles clearly have potential for expansion and can be referenced, your platform has lost three legs and is teetering on its broken fourth. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the case for these articles as stand-alone topics is thin at best, but good work on expanding and adding references. I don't particularly mind the deletion debate, but agree that maybe a merge discussion would have been more helpful in the long run. Also, remember that this isn't a vote - we're not looking for a particular score to keep the articles. If the arguments have merit, then the closing admin will note that merit. I think everyone, above, has made their position quite clear, and it's getting a little heated. We should have some hot dogs and a beer, perhaps, and sit back to see how things end up. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Offering me a beer at work, now that's dangerous! KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Use Corner Outfielder as a disambig, merge utility infielder and fourth outfielder into utility player. - They are reasonably likely search terms, but I think merging the content should be sufficient to avoid redundancy. A corner outfielder page can briefly define the two positions and disambig to them.  matt91486 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A fourth outfielder is not necessarily a utility player.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was saying fourth outfielder to outfielder Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 00:47, 29 March 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.