Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchball
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn sources have been found. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Punchball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Pretty simple here, WP:NFT. JBsupreme (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, WP:NFT. also, article seems to give varying, confused definitions of what punchball is - "Punchball is a sport similar to baseball but without a pitcher, catcher, or bat. It is a pastime of football announcer Al Michaels, who often played with former Chicago Bears quarterback Sid Luckman" vs "At the University of Florida, students commonly play a version of punchball which involves 2 players, a pitcher/goalie and the puncher". Article doesn't cite any sources to prove this game exists.
Also, a speedball is a speedball, not a punchball. no connection there. AND- how can a game be similiar to baseball, but not have a pitcher? nothing makes sense.
Keep. Article has been cleaned up a bit + has some better references now. I would like to mention however that at [1] and at [2] (those are currently citations 1 and 5 in the article) i couldnt find any actual reference to punchball. If punchball is mentioned in the books featured on those sites (you cant access the books text) pls delete the links and just provide standard book references instead, with page numbers. Also ill add, the original article seemed to go out of its way to declare its subject non notable (a game played by 2 famous people plus students at one college) --Brunk500 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As to footnote 1, see the last paragraph on the indicated page 194, directly following the quote of Larry McPhail to the subcommittee of the House of Representatives. As to footnote 5, I've traded the textual reference for one in another book that refers to The Boys of Summer, and added The Boys of Summer as a see also. I think the college reference was innappropriate and deleted it, and see that on the talk page I questioned the w famous people reference two years ago. But again, AfD nomination should not be made on the basis of the article as it stands, but on the basis of no sources existing -- wp:before asks the nom to research that first. A quick google check would have indicated the innapropriateness of an AfD here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Comment Assuming the article's true and not a hoax, the editor didn't think it up one day, Al Michaels and Sid Luckman did. One question, then, is whether anybody besides Al Michaels and Sid Luckman ever played it. Another question is when did Al and Sid's paths ever cross? Yeh, they're both from Brooklyn, but different generations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page [1] alleges that employees of Kimberly Clark played the game in the 1930s. It also cites wikipedia,
so it could still be a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- This page [2] has nothing about punchball, bu it alleges that Al Michaels met Luckman once, and various references I've seen indicate that Michaels apparently talks about Luckman a lot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article [3] is a reminiscence about various old-time street games in NYC, including punchball. Near as I can tell, the game was like hitting fungos with a spaldeen and your fist, kind of like stickball without a stick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page [2] has nothing about punchball, bu it alleges that Al Michaels met Luckman once, and various references I've seen indicate that Michaels apparently talks about Luckman a lot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This nom reflects a failure to follow wp:before. A simple google search -- just on books -- yields 691 hits, with a book by Stephen Jay Gould towards the top. Minor baseball personalities Sandy Koufax and Jackie Robinson played it growing up. Its mentioned in Roger Kahn's Boys of Summer. Come on, guys. Yes, the article needs improvement, but AfD -- not even close; this should never have been nom'd.
I'll addI've added some refs to reflect its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Something was previously said in the article that "punchball" is also a type of ball, synonym "speedball", used by boxers. I don't know if that's true, but things get a little confusing because there is a Speedball (sport) which is a variation on soccer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I was the one who deleted that. I didn't take the time to research it, as I thought it more important to respond to this AfD. But if its the case, it sounds like a hatnote issue, rather than fodder for the substance of the article, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, or a footnote somewhere. Its placement in the article was confusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully the complaints posted at the top of the AFD have now been addressed. It's a real game, and it's sourced; and its similarity to baseball is obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, or a footnote somewhere. Its placement in the article was confusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I was the one who deleted that. I didn't take the time to research it, as I thought it more important to respond to this AfD. But if its the case, it sounds like a hatnote issue, rather than fodder for the substance of the article, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The AfD nom might have looked reasonable when it was posted and the article had few refs, but with the present state of refs it's an obvious keep. The nominator might want to withdraw to save wasting people's time. NBeale (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sourced that it's real and the timeline of Robinson, Koufax and Powell playing the game shows that it wasn't just made up one day.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting article with reference to highly notable baseball players and Stephen J Gould (strange bedfellows). This is an article that needed to be written. Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tx for your kind words. Actually Gould (with whom I was acquainted just slightly in passing -- but enough to view him as a brilliant Renaissance man) was a huge baseball fan. As with George Will, it's not what he was mainly known for, but baseball was a great passion of his (hence the subtitle to his book on baseball). Though not everyone agreed w/him on baseball, as here. Sadly, by the time that came out, he was no longer in a position to provide one of his standard, thoughtful, and witty rejoinders.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that book a finished product, or was it assembled from his notes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great question. My recollection is that it came out after he died. I have to find my copy to check this, but I think the treatment is more or less different essays, and it may well be that some were reprints of bits he had already had printed elsewhere (in which case, while he might have changed them given the chance, at some point he felt they were good enough to print). But I'm not sure what percentage of the book would fall into that class. If I can find it (or check enough book reviews), I may find the answer, and if so I will get back to you on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book is pretty much what Gould intended, then it seems he was writing more as a fan than as a scientist, and there's no harm in that. A lot of folks thought Cobb was the greatest player ever, for example; not just Gould. I used to think so too, though I don't anymore. But it's just a matter of opinion. By contrast, as I recall, George Will's books were a little more cerebral. But I don't think George was a figger filbert. He was writing more about the human side. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is your answer. See the Editor's note on pp. 21-22.[4] It seems that but for one essay and his intro, all were already published words. His habit was to choose and edit prior essays. Seems he did that, to the extent able until he was too weak to continue. Who knows whether, if healthy, he might have done more. He left it in his office, rather than delivering it to his publisher, suggesting to me he might have done more had he been able. I don't think either author could possibly separate who they were as thinkers from how they thought about the game--certainly, Gould' thinking as to why we don't have .400 hitters any more is such a treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The critic's comment that hitting .400 is overrated, is kind of skirting the question. Gould's argument, according to the critic, was that the extremes have tended to level out. I think he was partly onto it. There was a slow progression of pitching becoming more dominant, which reached its peak (or nadir) in 1968. Even now, I think it's just tougher to be a top-notch productive hitter than it was in Williams' or Ruth's or Cobb's eras. I think someone could hit .400, if they decided to. But at what price? 200 singles? The game is about scoring runs, more than anything. Look at Teddy Ballgame's stats from 1941.[5] Not only did he hit .406, with 37 homers and 120 RBIs, he only struck out 27 times while walking 147 times. Incredible discipline at the plate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See this (open it and search for "Gould"), for a good SABR treatment of the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting review, rather less dismissive than the other one was. I find it funny that Gould kind of puts down humans' tendencies to create heroes, while in other places engaging in gushy hero worship. Gould was supposedly an atheist. I don't think so. He was a true believer in the Church of Baseball. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See this (open it and search for "Gould"), for a good SABR treatment of the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The critic's comment that hitting .400 is overrated, is kind of skirting the question. Gould's argument, according to the critic, was that the extremes have tended to level out. I think he was partly onto it. There was a slow progression of pitching becoming more dominant, which reached its peak (or nadir) in 1968. Even now, I think it's just tougher to be a top-notch productive hitter than it was in Williams' or Ruth's or Cobb's eras. I think someone could hit .400, if they decided to. But at what price? 200 singles? The game is about scoring runs, more than anything. Look at Teddy Ballgame's stats from 1941.[5] Not only did he hit .406, with 37 homers and 120 RBIs, he only struck out 27 times while walking 147 times. Incredible discipline at the plate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is your answer. See the Editor's note on pp. 21-22.[4] It seems that but for one essay and his intro, all were already published words. His habit was to choose and edit prior essays. Seems he did that, to the extent able until he was too weak to continue. Who knows whether, if healthy, he might have done more. He left it in his office, rather than delivering it to his publisher, suggesting to me he might have done more had he been able. I don't think either author could possibly separate who they were as thinkers from how they thought about the game--certainly, Gould' thinking as to why we don't have .400 hitters any more is such a treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book is pretty much what Gould intended, then it seems he was writing more as a fan than as a scientist, and there's no harm in that. A lot of folks thought Cobb was the greatest player ever, for example; not just Gould. I used to think so too, though I don't anymore. But it's just a matter of opinion. By contrast, as I recall, George Will's books were a little more cerebral. But I don't think George was a figger filbert. He was writing more about the human side. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great question. My recollection is that it came out after he died. I have to find my copy to check this, but I think the treatment is more or less different essays, and it may well be that some were reprints of bits he had already had printed elsewhere (in which case, while he might have changed them given the chance, at some point he felt they were good enough to print). But I'm not sure what percentage of the book would fall into that class. If I can find it (or check enough book reviews), I may find the answer, and if so I will get back to you on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that book a finished product, or was it assembled from his notes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage in books, sources found and added. Dream Focus 01:27, 19 December 2009 (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.
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=M7F4yExH0ygC&pg=PA194&dq=punchball&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a&cd=341#v=onepage&q=&f=false
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=C9apQfriaa0C&pg=PT51&dq=punchball&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a&cd=35#v=onepage&q=punchball&f=false