Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A drive into deep left field by Castellanos

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 soft keep. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A drive into deep left field by Castellanos[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was in two minds about bringing this straight to AfD without discussing it elsewhere first, but since the article is in line to make a DYK appearance I think it's in everyone's interest to get a quick consensus on this.

In the first place, I'm not sure whether this article is about the meme or the incident that led to it. If it's about the meme, as the title would suggest, then I don't see any convincing evidence that this is a notable topic. Aside from the long Ringer article, I can't find any detailed discussion of the meme in reliable sources; at best I find a few articles on particular instances of it, eg. [1], [2], but I wouldn't call these significant coverage because they don't provide anything in the way of useful information for our purposes.

If the article is about Brennaman's apology and the reactions to it, then I don't see any reason to spin this out from Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, because as far as I can tell, that section relates all the pertinent facts without being undue in the context of the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Internet. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. No independent notability from Thom Brennaman, whose article already covers the incident. It being a niche meme with very limited sourcing independent of the subject doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, where this can be discussed in a wP:DUEWEIGHT manner. I don't believe there's a convincing rationale for a separate article on this topic. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. The content is already there, and there's nothing about this incident that is weighty enough for a stand-alone article. Joyous! | Talk 23:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG and NEVENT. SIGCOV in Ringer article, New York magazine article, Sports Illustrated article that covers the incident and Brennaman's apology as a prelude to Nick Castellanos' role in the meme, Arizona PBS discusses the incident as a prelude to discussion increased scrutiny of sports announcers, for some reason Golf Digest talked about the meme in regards to Castellanos, an in depth article in Baseball Prospectus about this incident and its role in LGBTQ acceptance in MLB baseball. These articles show WP:LASTING (event led to memes, copypasta, and increased scrutiny of announcers), WP:GEOSCOPE (articles come from local and national publications), WP:DEPTH (see above), WP:PERSISTENCE (many of these articles were written months after the incident), WP:DIVERSE (some articles talk about the incident and the memes it created, some talk about the incident and homophobia, some talk about the incident and how it's affected Brennaman). Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bait30: Could you clarify whether you are arguing for the notability of the meme or the incident? If the meme, do you believe that the sources you've linked here contain enough useful information to write more than a paragraph or two on the subject (per WP:WHYN)? Or if the incident, could you explain why you think this information should be spun off into a standalone article rather than covered in a section at Thom Brennaman (see WP:NOPAGE)? Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't live in a vacuum; the incident and the meme are intertwined. (well I guess technically the earth is in space and space is a vacuum) Per WHYN, Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, that means including a few sentences about the meme at Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments, as indeed that section already does. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you incorporate [3], [4], and [5] into the Thom Brennaman article? Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a sub-section into a dedicated section or page on the suspension of Brennaman, as this is not really independent from the overall event. BhamBoi (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bait30; there is some notability and WP:SIGCOV. However, I also support redirecting to to Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bait30; the Ringer article in particular is clear, strong SIGCOV. The article could stand to be clarified that it is about the meme and not the incident, but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Note: The New York Magazine link above is incorrect, [this https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06/enough-with-the-backlash-over-harmless-broadcaster-gaffes.html] is the article mentioned. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bait30. starship .paint (exalt) 08:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above... the title is a phrase with little meaning on it's own.. the subject is covered enough on the Brennaman article. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's content is about more than just what's described at Brennaman's article, with a focus on the event and ensuing meme rather than Bernnaman himself. Merging all of this content to Brennaman's article would be undue and so a violation of the NPOV policy. Redirecting it without merger or deleting it would remove a significant amount of verifiable and notability-conferring coverge. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. There's also articles from years afterwards that note how people have kept using the meme, and used "Castellanoed" as a verb, and other instances of Castellano home-runs interrupting serious segments. [6][7][8][9]. All of this coverage is very much something more than just coverage of the original broadcaster who made the apology and would be undue to include that material there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain sceptical that a full article could be written on the subject of the meme based on the sources available, once the trivia has been filtered out. To take the first source in your list, all it tells us is that the Pittsburgh Pirates made a reference to the meme on Twitter, a fact that would be undue for inclusion in any article.
Per WP:WHYN: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. The article currently contains four sentences on the subject of the meme; I haven't seen any evidence that much more than this could be written. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about a meme, which is literally defined by repeated use and imitation by others, I would have to disagree. I see this as similar to how articles on military equipment, would list major users such as national armies, police, but except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. very high profile crimes), individual users wouldn't be listed. So social media posts by random individuals would be undue, but major baseball orgs like the Pirates using a baseball meme in an article about a baseball meme is fine to at least briefly mention.

I also disagree with your assessment of how much material there is on the meme, which is only true if you use the most restrictive definition of "subject of the meme". How an article subject came to be, as long as it's proximate enough, is generally considered part of the content. In any case, the sources I gave, as well as some material at the Castellanos and Brennaman pages which is surprisingly not in this article could easily be added. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking consensus for either keep or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG as a standalone event and meme as demonstrated by Bait30, while Tamzin and Patar knight demonstrate that this is a standalone topic from Thom Brennaman#Suspension for on-air comments. All three points of WP:NOTMERGE apply. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [if necessary] and Redirect - There's almost nothing in this article that isn't already in the Brennaman article, and it's also present (in less detail) in the Castellanos article. The question of whether it's notable enough for Wikipedia is a question of whether we should cover it on Wikipedia, not necessarily whether it needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE). As it stands, it's effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I suppose a big question would be whether the content in the Breenaman article could be significantly cut (i.e. whether it merits spinning out a new article), but it seems like a major event of his career that deserves some extra space. A few sources like those listed here justify the extra space in his article, not hosting the same content in two places. I'd probably reconsider if someone had an argument to trim the Brennaman article's content down to a single paragraph or so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bait30, meets WP:SIGCOV since it there are both regional and national news sources covering it (ex. Cincinnati Enquirer and New York Times) and sports authorities (ex. ESPN). Castellanos also recently referenced the incident in an Instagram post leading to additional coverage by Sports Illustrated Cassd99 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.