Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankee killer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yankee killer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not a notable term. Whenever someone seems to do well against the Yankees, some beat writer invariably calls him a "Yankee killer", but there is no definition of what makes one a "Yankee killer". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —– Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. It does have an astonishingly high number of references in ghits, gnews, gbooks, and seems to have been a common name for some ballplayers such as Frank Lary and Lew Burdette among others.  There is a 2003 NY Post article here about "The Yankee Killers", which describes what it is all about.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is just about the expression "Yankee killer." There is no real information on what a Yankee killer is like, although I am sure they are good baseball players. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per concerns about Wikipedia being a dictionary. Additionally, every team in baseball has players that they consider to be "Team Killers." This phenomenon is hardly limited to the Yankees. And, for all I know, the phenomenon is not even limited to baseball (I'm a baseball fan to the exclusion of most other sports). Finally, I have no idea why there needs to be a separate article on this -- if indeed the content ought to exist in the first place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glossary of baseball (Y) It is pretty much a a dictionary definition, but it's for a term that has been quite popular in the baseball press. We have a place for such things. -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely support that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what exception to the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument the "Glossary of Baseball" article falls under, for those who think such an argument might have any applicability to this phrase -- which has not only a dictionary definition (already), but also a contextual discussion. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a question best asked/researched at WikiProject Glossaries. There's been quite a bit of discussion about this over the years. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked it here was that I'm puzzled as to how editors here can apply that principle to one and not the other, and was wondering what their thinking was.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, what you're really asking is "why are lists treated differently than articles?" How much time have you got ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just unfamiliar with a rule that says that this would be fine embedded in a glossary but not in an article. I'm not sure that NOTADICTIONARY applies in the first place, given the contextual and other treatment of the term in the article, but I'm trying to get at the rationale that is inspiring those that are troubled by the entire bit as an article, but not troubled by the entire bit being in the glossary.  I'm missing something -- to me, it seems a distinction without a difference; to my knowledge we apply the same notability rules to both.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect the entirety of the article to be merged. Probably no more than the first sentence. -Dewelar (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What encyclopaedic articles afford, and dictionary articles do not, is the rich background and history that this article contains. It is the short, nothing-more, dictionary explanations that the rule seeks to shunt to wiktionary.  The more fulsome treatment we have here, however, is what differentiates it from wiktionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is indeed the applicable guideline.  But we have to read beyond the title.  As the guideline states: "encyclopedias contain definitions."  The rule cautions against one-word definitions, and the like.  But it makes quite clear that "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description ... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns."  That describes the difference.  Here, the article already reflects a bevy of facts about its usage; it is not by any means limited to one-word definitions and linguistic concerns.  It is just the sort of article that the guideline indicates is appropriate for wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What the article contains, beyond the definition itself, is a list of examples that demonstrate the definition. That doesn't qualify as "other types of information". -Dewelar (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline tells us which definitions are appropriate for wp. And which are not.  The contrast under the guideline is between a) bare definitions, such as "killer -- someone who kills"; and b) encyclopedia articles, which begin with a definition and description of the topic, but "provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.  A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term."  This clearly goes beyond the bare definition.  It as the guideline calls for provides "other types of information about the topic as well".  The one sentence you are in favor of -- that is the bare definition, that is not appropriate for wp.  The 90 per cent of the article that you would delete -- that is replete with all the facts -- as distinct from the "linquistic concerns" -- that make it appropriate for wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the MoS entry on types of lists, which states "Glossaries contain a small working vocabulary and definitions for important, unique or frequently encountered concepts, usually including idioms or metaphors particular to a subject area." Thus, bare definitions are exactly what a glossary is meant to contain. -Dewelar (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Dewelar. If this were merely a bare one-sentence definition (rather than the much more fact-rich article that it is), I now understand that that would be a good place to park it.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I do think you'd agree, also, that it would be better than deleting it outright, which is what I would support if the merging concept is rejected. As I mentioned, my opinion is that all the facts present are simply supportive of the definition and not providing any additional substance; i.e., it presents statistical and anecdotal evidence of why certain players were called "Yankee killer" rather than focusing on the notability of the nickname itself. Such information should be merged to the articles for the individual players (which could, perhaps, be linked in the glossary entry) rather than used to pad out this article to make it look like more than it is. -Dewelar (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I agree that deletion is especially uncalled for, and more draconian. I would also  note that the nom's appropriate and accurate complaint in the nomination about the article lacking a definition has now been recognized and addressed.  My view (and where we differ) is that the usage history facts and the like that are in the article are precisely the sort of "other types of information about the topic as well" called for by the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, even on Wikipedia, reasonable people are allowed to disagree ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I recognize that we've had a somewhat scattered response to this AFD nom so far.  One D, one d/m, one m, and one keep.  Much has to do with a reading of wp:wikipediaisnotadictionary, and a determination as to whether the definitions that that guideline indicates are appropriate include this one.  Accordingly, I've left word at that guideline page talkpage, as well as a rescue tag.  Hopefully, further views will provide a clearer consensus in one direction or another.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read the titles of the newspaper articles that appear in the first page of results.  Yankee Killer is a real thing, and it gets coverage.  This isn't just a brief definition either, but an entire article about the term.   D r e a m Focus  00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG in failing to have multiple sources each with significant coverage to demonstrate notability of the term Yankee killer. Many of the sources usage of the term is WP:ROUTINE, not going into any in-depth coverage of the player's history of being a "Yankee killer" or putting it into historical context with other players.  The use of the term is mostly a generic moniker, adding killer after an opponent's name,  and contains no obvious notability.  Simply looking at WP:GOOGLEHITS without looking at the quality of the results is not justification for keeping an article. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:GNG -- sources do not "address the subject directly in detail". This term seems to be simply a convenient 'hook' for discussing pitchers that did particularly well against the Yankees. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Boston Red Sox. Actually we should probably delete it: clearly it exists, but I don't think the concept itself has gotten enough detailed coverage to justify a stand-alone article. We could note on the individual players pages that sportswriters have described them as such though. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (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.