Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jewel box baseball parks

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jewel box baseball parks[edit]

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

This page seems redundant due to the section Baseball park#Jewel Box ballparks, which does a better job of describing what Jewel Box parks are and incorporates all of this information. Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep the info... somewhere - I agree, it's redundant. I think the info was copied into the other article, rendering it so. Be sure to look for anything that links to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be delinked through Twinkle. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for list. On the other hand the section in the main baseball park article could be transformed into an article. I am assuming that the info is correct and can be sourced. Sources should be easy to find. Baseball parks are a topic that authors and journalists like to go on and on about. No one ever lost his job writing about a baseball park. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now wait a minute - the list is basically already an article, with the section in the ballpark article being the same list except in a tabular form. If you want a separate article, how about renaming this one to something like "Jewel Box ballparks", structuring it like its copy in "Ballparks", and then replacing the copy in "Ballparks" with a link to this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that works against splitting it out is that the main article has several such tables in it. Splitting out just one of them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe other lists on that page could be spun out as articles as well. The main article on ball parks should give general information for readers, not lists of every possible subspecies. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that should be up to the Articles editors to decide, not AFD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands, the parent article is unreferenced an pretty long, so there is no reason we couldn't put a {{main}} tag on the section linking it to the standalone article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if more specific referencing is needed, I know of several websites that have a wealth of information on this topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BaseballBugs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:13, 1 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.