Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable (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 no consensus. The discussion hasn't managed to reach any real consensus around policy-based arguments for keeping or deleting. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable[edit]

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

Second nomination of the article, the first AFD should have been closed as no consensus or delete (two keeps, one of whom was the article creator with no policy based arguements). This article mainly consists of original research, what does "unbreakable" means, also despite having listed sources, almost all the sourcing is Baseball Reference, while it's a reliable source for stats, it's clearly an unacceptable source for the content listed here. Other sources are what sports writers consider in their opinion what may be unbreakable or not, which also isn't really acceptable per WP:NPOV Delete Secret ^account 19:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It goes against the manual of style, uses stats lists as references, and the content should be merged to other baseball articles. Either delete or rename and greatly revise. --Nathan2055 ^talk 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An WP:UGLY article does not mean the subject is not notable and warrants deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is a strong as it's ever been, hardly worth an afd debate. The Baseball-Reference references are there for the stats when needed. The records themselves are compiled from multiple reliable sources. Everything checks out and I disagree with any assertion of original research. RoadView (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's lots of well-sourced, interesting content here but I just don't understand the point of the article itself. It can't ever meet WP:NPOV, since it's fundamentally an objective set of stats based on a subjective concept. At risk of falling down a slippery slope, what if we had 'List of Major League Baseball players considered the best' or 'List of Major League Baseball matches considered really quite awesome'? It's easy to see how these are subjective and not suitable (even if they meet WP:RS). It's a shame because it's a well-researched piece, but it just doesn't seem an encyclopedic topic. -Rushyo ^Talk 20:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe most if not all the list entries are sourced by at least one non-stat reference that supplied the POV that it was unbreakable. The stat refs are to provide additional context.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the best you can do with a topic that has a subjective element to it. Take multiple, reliable sources that indicate a reasonable consensus as to which records are unbreakable, then compile that information here to make it appropriately encyclopedic. This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. RoadView (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Describing points of view make the point, "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy."—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with WP:HEY attached - The article must have the "Life" references and some of the other references fixed. If it is, then there is WP:RS and I feel it passes WP:N. As a side comment, there might be an argument to move the article to a different name so that it is less of a WP:POV sounding title? - Pmedema (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:DEADLINK says "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." I saw the content of the working URL at one point and can vouch that it is not fictitious. Not sure if it is available as offline content.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archive of the LIFE slideshow I fixed the Rickey Henderson ref in the article. The other refs can eventually be fixed by going through the archived version of the slideshow and adding the archive urls to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And I acknowledge that it could use some work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted a link here on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The concept of "unbreakable records" in baseball has extensive support in reliable sources (and not just stats site), some of which are in the article. The article should be expanded to cover records that were once considered unbreakable (e.g., Babe Ruth's 714 home runs) but were since broken, but that is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nomination's premise about the original AfD being closed incorrectly. WP:SUPPORT and WP:POLLING are not substitutes for consensus. The article meets WP:GNG with references from LIFE, The New York Times, and The Epoch Times that discuss in prose the concept of unbreakable records. While I dont agree with the questionable math and liberal use of the word "unbreakable" in sources, my POV is not a reason to deny that reliable sources exists that subscribe to the view that unbreakable records exist. Editors can help improve the article to add neutrality and remove any record not verifiable, but an WP:UGLY article on a notable subject should not be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a key factor is the wording "... considered unbreakable". There's an article about movies considered the worst ever. In both cases, that "considered" carries an assumption of reliable sourcing as opposed to editors making stuff up. If the article doesn't already do so, it might be worth distinguishing "unlikely" from "well-nigh impossible". The former is because the bar is set so high, as with Joe D's 56-game hitting streak. The latter is because the nature of the game has changed, as with Cy Young's 500-plus career wins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this for deletion the first time, and in the last year I've changed my mind. The article needs a lot of work, but in baseball, the "unbreakable" records are an important part of the game's lore. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a lot of proper sources and is maintained a lot better than it used to be; meets GNG, which is what matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have spend some time thinking about this. I am a sucker for these types of lists, love to debate people about how "unbreakable" these (and other records) are, but I just can't agree that this is encylopedic. If some sporswriter or historian believes a record to be unbreakable, does that make it notable? I don't think so, because of the subjectivity of the word "unbreakable". I am knee-deep in love with baseball lore, but I believe that any record can be broken. As for the importance of these records to the lore of baseball, I disagree with that also. I am less than 40 (still!), and only one of these records has remained unchanged AND is steeped in baseball lore, DiMaggio's 56 games streak.Neonblak ^talk - 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe these are "unbreakable" as much as you do. However, the topic is verifiable and meets GNG. I dont feel we should be censoring information because we believe the opinion is wrong. We could add text to show that "unbreakable" records have been broken in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am of the opinion that WP:V is referring to "facts"; it is a fact that Nolan Ryan has 7 no-hitters and can be verified through many independent reliable resources. Although a historian may believe that his record is "unbreakable", it is an opinion. Whether he/she can be quoted in a independent, reliable resource or not, it is still only an opinion. For list purposes, it could theoretically be endless, as long as one historian or sportswriter is quoted in print that he/she believes a certain record cannot be broken. This list appears to me to be trivia more so than a list of facts. Kind of like someone creating "List of Scientific Theories that can not be disproved". Even if you can gather quotes made by well-known scientists from reliable resources, puting them together in a list seems unencyclopedic to me. If tonight, someone hits 5 home runs in a game, and some deep-thinking historian says that no one can hit six in a game, is that now able to added to the list?Neonblak ^talk - 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point regarding criteria for entries in the list was previously discussed on the article's talk page. While it is a concern regarding the article's content, I'm don't believe it is a basis for article deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Records are only highly unlikely to be broken given current conditions; however, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. As I recall, both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus have written about how records like 300 wins may become approachable again in the future. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. isaacl (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists meets WP:LISTN as unbreakable records "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The references from LIFE, The New York Times, and The Epoch Times support this. Opposing views can be added to meet WP:NPOV. While WP:SPINOFFs may be possible, it does not mean this article should be deleted now.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What make Life Magazine a leading expert in baseball records? This isn't a GNG issue, this is a original research and a NPOV issue. There's plenty of topics that would meet GNG but will fail our other policies. Secret ^account 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also considering GNG is being used here for an arguement to keep the article, it is only a guideline in the end of the day, I haven't really seen any policy arguement explaining that how isn't original research and NPOV, both of which is policy and trumps GNG. Again something that some media members think it's unbreakable or not is going to be subjective at the end of the day, and like Issacl said, baseball changed so much thoughout its jhistory, that something being "unbreakable" isnt really remarkable record. Give Bob Gibson earned run average for example, he had such a low earned run average that season mailnly because MLB changed the height of the pitching mound to counter the high scoring games back in the early 1960s, and that of course backfired. Cy Young won 511 games because he pitched in a era in which teams only used two starting pitchers and threw much softer, preventing the arm abuse that went on later. This is original research in the end of the day. If there's been some controversy about "unbreakable" records, that might meet Wikipedia guidelines, but there isn't much in sources, nor it's not really discussed in the media unless it's a human interest story. Secret ^account 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a minor side note, I did not suggest that any spinouts be created, but that the information on, say, the approachability of the all-time win record can be described within the article on wins. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "There are some records that the baseball community considers unbreakable. I wonder if Wikipedia has a list of them. I sure hope so, because it would be real convenient to be see them all together in one place." ... "There is an article! Excellent! Wait, what? Considered for deletion! Why would anybody want to delete a beautiful list like that? Lemme see those reasons." ... "It's not encyclopedic? Sure it is. The list is subjective? Not really, if it's compiled from multiple sources. Looking over the list, I would agree that almost all of them are unbreakable, and probably most followers of baseball would, as well. Let's see those references: Hmm, 'Unbreakable records'... 'Unbreakable record'... 'not all records are made to be broken'... Looks pretty substatiated to me. The lists of unbreakable baseball records are out there, and have been compiled by sports writers for 120 years. How is that any more subjective than anything else we have secondary sources for?" ... "Anyway, I sure hope they don't delete this article, it would be a real shame if this list were gone from Wikipedia." Listmeister (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Keep (1) What needs fixing, clarifying, improving, or better sourcing needs fixing, clarification, improvement or better sourcing; none of the deficiencies are anywhere severe enough on their own (or together) to merit deleting the whole list. (2) On the trickier question of notability: the whole point (as I see it) of the list is to show why the records are considered unlikely to be broken (just as the 22nd Amendment makes it extremely unlikely that any U.S. President will serve the record four terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt). Almost all sports strive to exceed past achievements (the Olympic motto is Faster, Higher, Stronger), and American professional baseball is certainly no exception, from either the athlete's or the observer's point of view. (3) I might, however, be agreeable to a new title (with redirects from the current one), if that would make the list's purpose clearer to more readers while still easily found by those looking for unbreakable records. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage given, and the word "unbreakable" is even used in the headlines of many news articles linked to in the reference section. Dream Focus 09:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I do acknowledge that this article does have to be cleaned up quite significantly, (1) refs come from a wide variety of reliable sources, (2) Baseball Reference is almost only used for stats and not to reinforce why a record is unbreakable, and (3) almost all records are backed up by multiple sources, not the opinions of one or two sports writers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2012 (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.