Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Win Shares (book)


 * 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. Rough consensus is that the combination of a notable author and ample sourcing derives sufficient notability for this book. As DGG said, however, more discussion on this type of situation in general may be warranted. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Win Shares (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This book does not meet the guidelines of WP:NB.


 * Criterion 1: there are no published works concerning this book.
 * Criterion 2: this book has won no literary award.
 * Criterion 3: this book has had trivial historical or cultural impact.
 * Criterion 4: this book is not used in academic instruction.
 * Criterion 5: this book's author is not particularly historically significant.

I cannot think of other reasons why this book is in any way notable. Additionally, the article has no citations for verification, and contains no claim of notability. The creator of the article declined the PROD placed on the article.Claritas (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly meets Criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide me with the title or IBSN of a book whose main subject is this book ? Claritas (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Let me tell you why I "created" this article. There's an article called Win shares, which prior to this afternoon had a section on the book and some other sections on the statistic. The information about the book didn't fit in with everything else very well (check previous versions to see what I mean), so I moved it to this article. I understand Claritas' notability argument; I think it's a little more notable on #3 though. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 19:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Win Shares needs a serious clean-up, and the book itself seems not to be notable outside the subject of Win Shares. Hence, I would suggest merging it back into the article once it is deleted. I'm not sure how it meets #3 - this would by default infer that it had had an impact outside baseball. Claritas (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging it back would defeat the purpose. I put what little relevent information there was from the article back already; the rest probably should just die  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a reference book. Saying that it's not notable outside the subject of Win Shares (the statistic) is like saying that a dictionary is not notable outside the subject of definitions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, absurd nomination. Bill James, the "Godfather of Sabermetrics", isn't "particularly historically significant"? Someone should tell Time magazine - they're apparently under the impression that he was one of the most 100 influential people in the world as recently as four years ago (Link). As for the discussion of the book itself, the statistical metric of Win Shares (which James describes and delineates in this book) is a standard and notable tool of baseball analysis. It's used in numerous serious books on baseball history and academic works on statistical analysis - it even got written up in Popular Mechanics, for pete's sake. The nom plainly did no research before nominating the article for deletion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill James is ultimately a baseball commentator, and not the sort of individual who is so historically important that anything they publish is article worthy (We're talking about the likes of Frederich Nietzsche or Noam Chomsky here). Likewise, just because an article or a book is cited or mentioned, this does not automatically make it notable. You may be able to push it on the fact that people have written about it, but as far as I can see, most mentions are essentially in passing. There hasn't been any work on this book as a book. Claritas (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That statement of the authors' relative importance is, certainly, your opinion. Personally, I disagree. And it seems fairly strange that you would support the inherent notability of the works of someone like Chomsky. I'm not disagreeing that Chomsky's work is inherently notable - I just don't understand why you, personally, would think that it is, given your stated standards (e.g. Hitler's works are inherently notable because he had "a great effect on the 20th century", while James's are not because "he isn't of great historical importance outside [his] rather narrow field"). Is generative grammar not a "rather narrow field"? If you stopped a large group of 20th-century people on the street, how many would be able to describe the ways that Chomsky changed their lives? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Hit bull, win steak.  It's sufficient for the writer to be notable in his field.  We are not limiting application of the provision in question to the author of the Ten Commandments.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not sufficient for the writer to be notable in his field: "This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes" - please see WP:NB. Claritas (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I made the mistake of not double-checking myself.  I stand corrected.  I had in mind wp:author.  Which tells us that an author is notable if:  "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."  I would argue, though the language at the books guideline has not been revised to reflect this, that that should be the standard we consider in any event -- it makes little sense for an author to be notable for that reason, but none of his books deemed notable for that reason.  (Alternatively, we could always hang our hat on books criterion # 3:  "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable ... religious movement."  Inasmuch as sabremetrics is clearly a religious movement.  ;) )--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: per my comment about the information not fitting well in the parent article, and also because I think this interpretation of notability is too stringent...I could probably find a dozen books that violate it, and haven't been AFDed Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ' Delete changed to uncertain, see below.  perhaps we should talk about revising the book guideline, but in practice it is usually met by there being substantial reviews of a book, which meet the basic requirement of published works about it. Myself, I think this over-generous to all modern non-fiction books, but at the moment we are still using it. I'm generally somewhat of an inclusionist--some people might say a good deal of an inclusionist-- but this is already much too far and I can not see extending it--like many things based on the GNG, it was adopted without realizing the extent to which sources would be able to be found for even the relatively trivial.  I think we have never accepted  that all the books written by a notable person are notable--this is true only of famous authors, not ones that are merely notable--an author is notable if several of his books are notable, but we would hardly expect that all of them are--with most authors, even fairly good ones, some are trivial variations, and others are failures.  Nor are all books about a notable  subject notable. That would, for example make every book ever written about baseball individually notable, not every book ever written about the United States. It should be merged back, as withe most books. No reason is given for doing otherwise, except "IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME."  DGG' ( talk ) 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Well here's another area where approaches are not parallel on wikipedia -- the music wikiproject approach is to generally consider all albums by a notable band or singer to be notable. As to reasons why I imagine that approach is adopted by the music wikiproject, are: 1) album covers cannot be reflected on band pages, but can be on album pages; 2) one loses the cats for the album if it is in the band page; 3) one reflects more detail, as in track listings, on the album page template than one would in the band page. But for those issues, I really can't see much difference to anybody which way it is done, in practical effect. I mean -- if it can be a section of an article, it takes up the same amount of wiki space (as if that mattered; which of course it doesn't). I'm actually surprised that there aren't reviews of Will's book -- he is the god of sabremetrics, and win shares is part of what he is famous for (among baseball fans). --Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – We already have a piece called Win shares that describes the book. This new article is just duplication. On the other hand, while I totally agree with DGG’s assessment above (paraphrased) “…Not everything a notable author writes should be classified as notable in and of itself based on the prose or notability of the subject matter”.  However, it should be pointed out that when a notable author, who I believe Mr. James qualifies under our current standards to be considered notable, does write a new book, the notability of the author, I believe, passes to the book, based on the notability of the author.  The new book will be reviewed by major critics, one of our guidelines for inclusion, as this book was.  Likewise it ranks as #92 in Books > Sports > Baseball > Statistics, which I believe is notable.  I believe we must be careful using subjective guidelines with what we consider notable and use the objective guidelines that we currently have such as have reliable sources reviewed the book, are these creditable sources and are they verifiable sources.  If it meets these criteria’s than it should be included.  If we follow DGG’s assessment we should also start an AFD for Mein Kampf.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because notability only passes from authors to their works in extraordinary cases, when the author is so historically significant that all their works are automatically notable. James doesn't meet that qualification, because he isn't of great historical importance outside the rather narrow field of baseball analysis. However, Hitler had such a great effect on the 20th century, anything he wrote automatically becomes notable, as per Friederich Nietzsche or Karl Marx, to give another example. [Mein kampf]] is also notable simply because it meets the basic guidelines of WP:NOTABILITY, whereas this work does not. Regards. Claritas (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that James's influence extends beyond baseball, in that his work helped foster the increased use of (and popularity of) statistical analysis in many aspects of daily life, not just baseball. Also, I do not feel that Win shares and Win Shares (book) are redundant, in that the one is a statistic used and described in several of James's books, while the latter is a specific reference work. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * James does not meet the criteria - he is not "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Claritas (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a surprising number of colleges and universities offering classes in sabermetrics: "Courses, course modules, and independent study in sabermetrics are being or have been taught at a number of respected colleges and universities, among them Bowling Green State University, Columbia University Teachers College, Muhlenberg University, Seton Hall University, Tufts University, the United States Military Academy, and Williams College." (per SABR). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If only seven universities teach James, he probably doesn't meet the criteria of "common classroom study". I admit that this is heading towards the borderline. Claritas (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not necessarily the only seven - the source says that they are "among" the ones that have provided instruction on the subject. To say nothing of the use of James's work in classes and academic research in related disciplines. Look at some of the scholarly papers discussing James's work, which I mentioned earlier: The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sport, The Journal of Economics and Finance, Mathematics Magazine (by the Mathematical Association of America), The Journal of Heuristics, The Journal of Sports Economics, The International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, etc. And that's just one example apiece from ones specifically discussing Win Shares. If you broaden it to include James's other sabermetric work, you also add The Quarterly Journal of Economics, The Journal of Gerontology, Psychological Bulletin (by the American Psychological Association), The Southern Economic Journal, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, The Review of Economics and Statistics, American Statistician, Managerial and Decision Economics... he casts a surprisingly wide shadow. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge back in to Win shares. James is notable. The stat is notable. The book is just a reference for the stat. Commentary and criticism is about the stat, not the book itself. There is no meat for a separate article. Info on the book belongs with either James, the stat, or both. » scoops  “  ŧäłķ  „ 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Epeefleche has done excellent work on the article. I'm concerned that a couple of the citations still refer more to the stat than to the book itself, but there seems to be more coverage than I realized about the book. The article probably could use a little further editing for tone, but I think independent notability and verifiability have been established. » scoops  “  対談  „ 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep The fact that the author made the Times list of 100 most influential people doesn't make any book he wrote notable.  The fact that this book is (about the subject that's) the reason he's on that list probably does make the book notable.  IMO. Maybe.  If he wrote a book on gardening, that wouldn't be notable; this may well be.David V Houston (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The author is notable and the metric probably is too, but qua book there's nothing notable about it beyond the metric it describes, which is treated in Win shares. Seems redundant. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This book has a number of reviews and references to it not previously reflected in the article.  I've reflected now a number of references to the book that appear in various articles and books.  More are out there if anyone else wishes to reflect them.  Most clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you already find sources reviewing the book.  D r e a m Focus  08:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncertain I would like a discussion by the knowledgeable about how this book relates to the other books by the author, and which of them are notable and which are not. I remain completely unwilling to accept that all his works are automatically notable because he is, but it is possible that some of them are. Nor do I accept that being used in a limited number of schools makes it notable, or a few dozen citation to it. With respect to reviews, I have learned to trust as reliable only formally published full reviews in respected sources which are selective about which books they review, but never to trust blurbs about the book on amazon or the book jacket, no matter how respected the author of the blurb, for experience shows people will not refuse to write laudatory comments about anything published by their friends.  From the discussion in the article, it appears that this book is the theoretical work on the basis of which his system of rating is constructed, along with examples, a system then applied to actual statistics in some of his other books. It is possible that both the theoretical and the applied works can be notable, but the standards would be different: one would be studied, one used as a reference. It seems that some of his books may be   used as  standard reference works in their subject by those interested in baseball, and therefore be notable, but it would be very exceptional that all of them would be. I see we have articles on
 * The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract including its earlier edition  The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract ; Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?;     The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers;   as well as the present Win Shares

but that we do not presently have articles on
 * Bill James Baseball Abstract (1977-88), its apparent continuation The Bill James Baseball Book (1990-92), its apparent further continuation The Bill James Player Ratings Book (1993-96), its apparent dual continuations The Bill James Handbook (2003+) , and The Bill James Gold Mine (2008+ ) -- question: were there no annuals published 1997-2002 ?); and the separate  This Time Let's Not Eat the Bones , and  The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers.

Normally, for reference books, people do not write articles about both the annual volumes of a series and its cumulations, but rather a combination article about them all. Normally there would be articles about the more general books, not the more specialized, which in normal cases are excerpts from the general ones,and would better be mentioned in the articles about the more complete works. Normally there would be a decision which of several overlapping titles is the basic or primary one, and the others mentioned in that article. (with redirects for the ones  mentioned but without articles in all these cases). It is normally more helpful to the reader here if related works are discussed together, rather than in separate articles. The present selection  seems to need some adjustments here. It seems better to discuss this as a general question for all the books. If the specialists will decide, and their decision seems rational, I will accept their judgements about which to select. If I had to decide based on the titles alone, I would demote the guide to pitchers, combine the annuals with the two historical books, and consider the three distinctive books including this one on their own merits.  DGG ( talk ) 12:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is replete with formally published reviews and references to the book in RSs, and I don't believe any of them are "blurbs about the book on amazon or the book jacket".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 9 May 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.