Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Halladay's perfect game

Add links
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 keep. SNOWy j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Halladay's perfect game

[edit]
Roy Halladay's perfect game (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)

The creation of this page smacks of WP:RECENTISM and I don't believe that it has its own notability that is independent of the articles 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and Perfect game. The current article text is merely copied from the former article, and I believe that it should be redirected back to there. — KV5 • Talk • 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. I think it's better to redirect the page to Perfect game. Information about the perfect game is at 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and a little bit of information needs to be added at 2010 Stanley Cup Finals, as the Flyers played Game 1 of the series in Chicago the same night. Also, you may know that NBC replayed the final out during the first intermission report and the final innings coincided with the first intermission. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hockey information, as previously stated in other forums, is not relevant to articles on baseball. It's a trivial overlap. Coincidence is not encyclopedic. — KV5 • Talk • 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the comment above this one, Mandsford notes that the Buehrle's perfect game article is a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. Note also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for the notability of any given article. The AfD you reference does not establish notability for all perfect games, only for that article, and I think the result of that AfD could easily be contested in viewing that article in its current form. There is no reason that this information should be content forked from the two articles that it should be part of. — KV5 • Talk • 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vodello: 1) This is not a vote. 2) Other participants can read the linked discussions if they so choose, so no one is preventing anything. 3) I see no bold text ("screaming") except yours. 4) Comments like "The delete votes so far have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT caliber" could be uncivil. All things considered, I really do like this article, considering my loyalties. Just a thought.
  • Independent of my comments here, I still don't believe that independent notability has been generated without context within the season in which the game took place or the player's article. With improvement, perhaps there is a possibility for such notability to exist. However, that doesn't negate the fact that if this article turns into the Buehrle article, with box score after box score after stat line after stat line, it will, without a doubt, be violation of WP:NOT#STATS, as that article is right now. — KV5 • Talk • 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge with Roy Halladay. The Roy Halladay article isn't long enough that discussion of his perfect game in the main Roy Halladay article would make it too lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.109.14 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Since perfect games are so rare, they receive a lot of coverage. Other prefect games are covered extensively throughout time. I see no reason that this one won't be in future discussions. Actually, it already is since he recently threw a no-hitter in the post-season. The argument that the article is not at the standards it could be is no reason to delete, it is reason to clean-up. I will say that the keep votes should shy away from the WP:WAX arguments and just focus on this article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced, and the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The claim of "recentism" overlooks the fact that baseball historians regard MLB perfect games to be a notable and enduring part of the sport's history, as evidenced by detailed coverage in books published many years after the individual games occurred. I put together the following list of such books for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game as examples:
My conclusion is that individual perfect games are part of the subject matter of baseball history, and are thus appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles. BRMo (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm of the opinion that not every single lingle dingle no-hitter needs to have its own article (just because we can write a page that is well-sourced doesn't mean we need to, recentism aside), but definitely this one, being only the 2nd no-hitter/perfect game in MLB post-season history. It's kind of in a class of its own. –MuZemike 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual single game articles for games of extraordinary importance should exist on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is hardly fulls of STATS and details a rare and very notable occasion for MLB. With that, the article goes beyond general notability and since the game itself is important, it warrants its own article. The implication of RECENTISM is invalid IMO. The perfect games that happen recently have more readily available sourcing and interest. Wikipedia is driven by people's own interest as well. Maybe interested editors will one day create articles for the other 15 or so perfect games.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial coverage is present for notability, and this is a rare enough event that we shouldn't delete it under NOTNEWS grounds or something like that. Encyclopedias generally cover major events, and since we've judged that it's possible for specific games of certain sports to be major enough for coverage, I can't see why we should delete this on grounds unrelated to notability. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not many of these have been thrown, making it notable in the sports context. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is kind of important to have articles about the historic events, including perfect games. Roy Halladay's perfect game is the second perfect game thrown by a pitcher in 2010. First time that TWO perfect games were thrown in the same year since 1880. Editorofthewiki created and expanded to a great article, same user that he removed other info and play-by-play sections from Mark Buehrle's perfect game. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roy Halladay. Bloated with marginally relevant tidbits to make this pose as a real article. The only legitimate section is "Game summary" and can easily be incorporated into his biography. Sadly, Wikipedia is far too polluted with articles like this. Grsz11 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game received ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources above and beyond that provided most typical games, and the claim of notability for the game is well-supported by the references provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, lots of coverage that day after, the next day, but any evidence of prolonged notability? Grsz11 03:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An event that has only occurred 20 times in 131 years is definitely notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there is WP:RECENTISM. The solution to that is to create the fifteen missing articles, not to delete this one. Regarding Grsz11's comment a couple of lines up, there's not time yet to demonstrate prolonged notability of this game, but BRMo's list shows it pretty well for perfect games in general. Matchups 17:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with you! We shall create 15 more perfect games including Don Larsen's. Every time when there were perfect games in the future, then we shall make those articles within a day or two after that event. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this really soon? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 17 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Halladay%27s_perfect_game&oldid=1166487015"