Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Siroxo/List of sports similar to baseball

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was It's quite difficult to close a discussion as STALEDRAFT when someone says they're still using it. Nonetheless, that really does seem to be the case here. So I'm going to close as Delete, and then call your attention to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles (of which I'm a member, and probably the preferred one since I closed this), if you're actually going to use the content. Wily D 05:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Siroxo/List of sports similar to baseball[edit]

This page was userfied in February 2008 following the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports similar to baseball but it hasn't been touched in the 4½ years since so WP:STALEDRAFT applies. I placed a note on Siroxo's talk page 12 days ago[1] but haven't had a reply. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The evolution and branching of ball games is an encyclopaedic topic. This page fails WP:NOR, which means it doesn't belong in mainspace, but does not speak against allowing it in userspace. I am confident that suitable sources could be found. The are no time limits. Old does not mean stale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being 4½ years old doesn't make it stale, no, but 4½ years with 0 edits does. The topic might be encyclopaedic, but the AfD concluded that this wasn't useful as the basis for an article about it, and exactly 0 changes have been made in the time the otherwise deleted content has been sat in userspace gathering dust. If sources can be found then they can be better used to construct an article from scratch than to hold together a pile of original research. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The content may belong in Origins of baseball. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the AfD, they should have recommended renamining the topic to list of bat-and-ball games. We have List of bat-and-ball games. This old draft can be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES as an indefinitely hosted page that look like an article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s acknowledgment that the page violates Wikipedia:No original research, meaning that the page's content should not be used in the mainspace and per WP:UP#COPIES should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't violate WP:NOR as in forbidden like a self-taught physicist who has "proven" that Einstein was wrong. It's a sketch of a possibly good article, which violated WP:NOR in that it was not explicitly based on secondary sources. I'm still meaning to check that mainspace already contains it all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Are there any precedents re lists of 'X that are similar to Y'. Are they specifically discouraged anywhere? --Klein zach 00:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the original AfD I asked this be moved to my userspace. I'm positive it could be cited and cleaned up as it's not original research (well aside from some suspect entries). However I understand it's sat around for a while in my userspace. I'm fine with deleting it, I can reconstruct the important parts into an article and cite them at some point. Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be a good place for this article? That's half the difficulty. Would something like History of bat-and-ball games be appropriate? —siro χ o 08:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the content would do well to be merged into Origins of baseball. That article could use some work and your interest would likely be very welcome. If you generalised the current article from "Origins" to "History" and from "baseball" to all "bat-and-ball games", I think that would be a good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either would work, but I'd be very surprised if this short list of similar sports were not already substantially covered by those articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 28 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.