Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples/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 kept by SchroCat 17:00, 19 April 2015.

List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples

 * Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not currently meets the criterion established at WP:WIAFL, especially regarding notability. The cutoff is arbitrary and no outside sources seem to support the notability of 100 triples. Also, the prose, FWIW, is way too short and is not detailed enough to be considered FL quality. It's a nice little list, but just doesn't meet the standards of today.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 00:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article on Fangraphs from 2013 discusses the 100-triple plateau. This one, from Hardball Times, also discusses 100 as a significant number of triples. In this book, the author discusses a player narrowly missing 100 triples for his career, implying that the number is a significant one. I can find more, and I'd be happy to incorporate the significance of the number into the article's prose. I understand it's not something that you're going to read about in the sports pages every day, but that is likely because it's an increasingly rare achievement. In short, 100 triples is not a common thing to talk about, but it's more common than any other number of triples.
 * If we can agree on that, I'd be happy to improve the prose and upgrade and technical aspects of the table that may have changed since it was featured. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Really? Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases/archive2 fails its nomination as you argued against everything you're saying here in your nomination. But since the article you were working on failed it's FLC, you're going to in turn nominate a similar article at FLRC. Nice.  G loss  01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not at all why I nominated it, Gloss. Thanks for assuming bad faith though. It was because of notability concerns, of which was mentioned there. The milestone of 300 stolen bases was also mentioned in various sources and a book, but it doesn't necessarily indicate notability. That said, I'll let Coemgenus improve the lead so it meets standards for prose and see where we are with notability.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to waste my time and effort improving the prose until we can decide if it's notable. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to say it isn't notable, per your earlier comment.  G loss  01:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I ought to elaborate on my notability concerns. I had an article similar to 100 triples (300 stolen bases) recently, but it did not pass FLC. The main issue was notability concerns. 300 stolen bases was discussed in secondary sources, but notability wasn't necessarily demonstrated. I feel as if the issues at this list echo the ones at 300 stolen bases. 100 triples is mentioned in some secondary sources (including a book), but is not considered a notable milestone outside of Baseball-Reference. 100 triples is mostly notable because it's a round number and is mentioned in sources. As I said, it's certainly a nice little list, but it just isn't there with notability and prose. You're right, Coemgenus, that we ought to wait on addressing the prose until we can address notability, but the prose will also be a part of this.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet you nominated that article, so you thought it was notable enough then. Why the change of heart? This seems like you're trying to make a point and dragging this innocent article through the mud to do it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is turning into a bit of a back-and-forth WP:ABF. I realized that fighting for my nominated list was a lost cause and that it probably wasn't notable. It had been suggested, especially in the first nomination, that this article might be of concern. This isn't at all me trying to make a point. I'm trying to be helpful and see if we can have this article as a keep, but the concerns were great enough that further review was needed.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually assumed good faith when this began, but you've essentially admitted to playing the dog in the manger. I'm sorry your article didn't pass, but that's no reason to degrade someone else's work. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You were AGFing at the start of this, but Gloss's ABF comment was quite extreme and I think it had a rudely chilling effect. Regardless of whether or not my list had passed, I would have brought up the concerns I'm bringing up. Honestly, this is a problem across a lot of these MLB lists: arbitrary cutoffs and no chance at FL. If this list were to run for FL for thr first time ever, it would fail. It's quite similar to the 300 stolen bases one. But that doesn't mean I'm "degrading" your work at all. In fact, I found that remark offensive, as I put a lot of hard work to improve the 300 SB list just like you improved 100 triples. But your list passed FLC years ago, back when the criterion were much different. I want this to pass, so can we please address the concerns. Also pinging, , and . More opinions might be needed.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me I was assuming bad faith when I had every reason to say what I said, confirmed by your comment "I had an article similar to 100 triples (300 stolen bases) recently, but it did not pass FLC" - this is here as a result of your failed FLC. And I also don't want to hear that you're trying to keep this article as a featured list. If notability was a concern of yours, you could've easily brought it up on the baseball WikiProject talk page, or this article's talk page.  G loss  02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gloss, I used my FLC as an example of why notability might be a concern, but you assumed bad faith by giving off the connotation that this is pointy. I will definitely be bringing up these lists in general as a concern for WP:BASEBALL. We continue to set up arbitrary numbers for these lists. We can perhaps make leader-boards for each statistic, but choosing an arbitrary number makes it an automatic FLC failure, which isn't fair to anyone. But in the meantime, we're focusing on this list and my concerns about notability were great enough that a reassessment was necessary. Now, I just want to help out. This isn't in bad faith, and this isn't to prove a point. Can we all please collaborate like decent human beings? I offer my hand as a gesture of respect and collaboration, and you?  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As others have noted, there are independent sources that have lists of players with 100 triples, and even more have lists of all time triples leaders. So I don't see any issue with notability.  And besides being used by others, 100 is a rational place to end a list of all time triple leaders, as it is a round number that produces a reasonably sized list.  Rlendog (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Round numbers have resulted in failed FLC's recently, including a nomination of my own. Also, there were leader-boards for 300 stolen bases as well (just like 100 triples), as well as being mentioned in secondary sources, but it wasn't enough to prove notability and my article failed. Concerns are no different here IMHO. There are a lack of secondary, outside sources that demonstrate notability of 100 triples as a milestone. But the real issue does not lie in my list or this list, but at WP:BASEBALL as a whole. There seems to be a custom of naming these lists based on an arbitrary cutoff instead of actual milestones and as a result, none of these articles that aren't currently FL's don't stand a chance at FLC. Let me put it to you this way: if this article were to go through FLC today, it would fail for almost the exact same reasons mine did. But I guess this is an issue that the Baseball WikiProject needs to figure out in general, I guess.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your list failed because you withdrew, incase you've forgotten. Yes, you had two opposes, but that didn't mean it was automatically set to fail. We were still discussing and other editors could've easily joined in there. Please stop bringing "your" list up.  G loss  03:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I withdrew because based on the comments by you and another editor, the chances of the article passing were slim to none. It was highly likely that your comments would've merited more opposes. I bring "my" list up because it's a good example for why this article may have issues. Unless you have anything useful to add, it would be nice if you quit commenting here because all you've done thus far is whine like a five-year old does when they don't get their favorite candy bar at the convenience store. Can we please actually try getting somewhere without yet another review turning into a screaming match?  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not, when you dish out personal attacks in your edit summaries and your comments. But wow, that's probably the worst analogy I've seen in my entire wiki-career. Good try, kiddo.  G loss  03:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Aside: I'm surprised FLCR doesn't require issues be brought up at the article talk page first. The Fangraphs and Hardball Times references mentioned by Coemgenus above are the type of sources that help establish WP:LISTN: they talk about the significance of the grouping, and mention some of the members. The book reference from Ghosts of Baseball's Past would be the type that I consider a random mention that I would discount for LISTN purposes. To justify FL status, I would like to see content from Fangraphs and HBT incorporated into the lead. Frankly, references based on stats sites always feel more WP:OR-ish to me, relying on Wikipedia editors to cull random "interesting" tidbits from massive stats site, as opposed to reliable sources whose experts note them in prose.  One or two other sources that support LISTN fort he 100 club would seal the deal for me.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to incorporate them into the lead over the next few days, and to look for other sources, as well. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's some more you might be able to use: Houston Chronicle, Journal Sentinel ... and this one from Rocky Mountain News (needs HighBeam Research access). I'm confident enough that the 100 cutoff is notable.  The prose just needs to be expanded and sourced to explain more on the significance of 100. —Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional Concerns: Thanks Bagumba for getting this discussion back on track, BTW. These are mostly just minor tidbits that should be addressed with no issues at all and are easily fixable.
 * Remove the Rankings column on the table. It just doesn't have a place in the article IMO.
 * I'm not sure I agree on this one. Why would this be inappropriate?
 * Please add a Key like there is at the 300 SB article. This is mostly for the convenience of the reader.
 * Done.
 * The addition of one more image might be helpful (but this is far less pressing than the rest)
 * Done.
 * Other than that, expand the lead and incorporate those secondary sources, then I'd say that all of my concerns have been addressed.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, other than the rankings issue, all should be in order now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the rankings column isn't necessarily deleterious to the list's quality or anything, but it doesn't add anything either. I'm going to make a few more changes later this evening (i.e add a few more sources to the lede, clean up, etc), and then I think the list will be able to retain FL status.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you made any headway in the past 5-6 days with addressing the notability concerns and fixing the suggested changes above?  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, real life work has gotten in the way. I hope to address this this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem! Take as much time as you need for this.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think all the concerns should be addressed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This candidate has been kept. – SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


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