Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Slam Single

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam Single[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 don't see evidence of long-standing notability for the "grand slam single" hit by Ventura in the 1999 National League Championship Series outside of the context of the 1999 NLCS. Nor do the occurrences in 1970 or 1976 rise to the level of this being a notable subject for its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepity keep - interesting article - also big big shout out to user materialscientist for their diligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.241.244 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1999 National League Championship Series#Game 5, as an WP:ATD. Not notable game per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:48FF:3AE6:91BB:FED1 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly because the final section is ~~interesting and~~ useful and provides historical context beyond the play itself. Were it not for that section, I'd say merge into 1999 National League Championship Series#Game 5. ---Jameboy (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jameboy, "it's interesting" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some references in the article focus on the single itself rather than the game, establishing notability independent of the playoff game/series it is a part of. Frank Anchor 16:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Athletic does. That's one. The other references include YouTube links and Baseball Reference, not significant coverage. The Las Vegas Review Journal and MLB.com references are not focused on this one event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of the rule prior to 1920 that allowed a Grand Slam Single has been covered not just in the MLB.com article listed (which is not independent) but in The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, which is independent and reliable. Plus there's the Athletic article which focuses entirely on the single, that's two sources right there, there's your "multiple". And the historical context can't really be merged into the article on the NLCS, so for that reason the article should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has sufficient notability for a standalone article, satisfying GNG and SIGCOV. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Smartyllama. Plus there is other enduring coverage, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 13:36, 24 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.