Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees no-hitters/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010.

List of New York Yankees no-hitters

 * Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom the above Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought this little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Support because Stax is the man (ok, because this meets WP:FL?). &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Sandman888 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 11 items seems very, very small. Per 3.b cd this not reasonably be combined with other lists of no-hitters.


 * quite a long lede.
 * 11 items is 2 more than the already featured style guide for this, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters. It satisfies WP:GNG easily and stand-alone list requirements to cover the topic properly. The lead isn't that long, BTW. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On June 2009 quite many lists were deemed to fail 3.b for having <20 items, see Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2009. Why shd 'no-hitters' be exempt from that? Lead is quite long. Sandman888 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading those reviews, as far as I can tell none of them were delisted for having less than 20 items. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that this can be a SAL, namely because it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". A list of all no-hitters from all teams would be extremely long, and the lead of that article couldn't go into the detail this one goes into. Mm40 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And that was the rationale that led me to create the Phillies list in the first place. For teams that have a very small amount of no-hitters (even the Phillies' 10 is large, and is obviously contingent on the franchise's long history), information on 3 or 4 can be included in the franchise's main article. But these are really daughters of the main articles that, as Mm40 said, can't reasonably be included due to the length of the leads and the wealth of information that's available on these special games. Additionally, the traditional unofficial cutoff for featured lists has been 10 items, not 20. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That it would be long can easily be accommodated by a split. Whatever the random cut-off point might have been, I do not see why these lists cannot be merged, apart from the argument about vasts amounts of information which is supposedly essential to the list, but then it should really be an article (which is the focus) with an supplementary list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. These are not split from articles about no-hitters in general; they are split from team articles. All of that information that's contained here could not reasonably be included as part of the team's main article. A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long, as 267 have been thrown in MLB history, and to list them by player wouldn't make any sense either, because it's only the rare pitcher who throws more than one in his career. By team is the division that makes sense, especially since they are split from the team articles. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. It is perfectly possible to make a list of all no-hitters and then split it due to size; "List of no-hitters" & "List of no-hitters II" or whatever convention one might like. See also here which discussed the merits of keeping information in one article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And maybe I didn't make myself clear, as I just said "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long". If you want a list of all no-hitters, you can find one at Retrosheet. We're trying to build encyclopedia articles about baseball teams, not specifically about no-hitters. Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles. I can't stress that point enough, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Argument I: "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long", see this for a long FL. You have not said why it cannot be split in two (rather than 15+ articles). Argument II:"Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles." that no-hitters somehow does not belong together is quite odd. The criteria clearly states that "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Can a list of all no-hitters be made? Sure, you have linked to one yourself. The last remaining reason is that you want to write about "baseball teams" and not "no-hitters", I'm rather perplexed about how that is supposed to relate to 3.b, which does not have a qualifying ("unless you are aiming for a featured topic, then you can create all the small articles you'd like"). Sandman888 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that other FLs of length exist; I worked on restoring one. This list, however, meets both parts of criterion 3 in full because: a) "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", which is this team's no-hitters (not all no-hitters), and b) it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", because there is no list of no-hitters for all teams on Wikipedia, and we don't need one because its utility is limited. The utility of these team articles is greater because they are part of team histories. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great list, nice work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support my half-witted nonsense dealt with patiently and expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.