Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Baseball. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Baseball|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Baseball. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Many of the baseball-related deletion discussions center on questions of notability. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability (WP:BASE/N) may be helpful.

Baseball

Articles for deletion

Statue of Tom Seaver

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

I'm more concerned that the statue's notability is inherent rather than independent, despite the sources. Sure, detailing the statue is nice for readers to know, but such relevant info is mergeable into the parent article, Tom Seaver § Awards and honors. Also, I can't help wonder whether the article as-is violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and New York. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being the creator of this article, I suppose I should give the reasoning behind this. I'd argue keep; the statue notable in it being the first - and, to date, only - MLB park statue in NYC. Its also one of the few statues of sportspeople in NYC in general, depicting an iconic cultural figure of the city. Its also one of the few noteworthy statues in Queens, New York.

Its also a statue which was long fought for and which caused considerable controversey due to the timing of its announcement after the depictee's diagnosis with dementia and, a year later, untimely death. There is more than enough reasonable info about the statue itself to justify a fork, rather than unnecessarily loading up the main article with extra details about the controversy surrounding the statue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG and per Omnis Scientia. I could repeat much of what they say above, and argue further for keeping this unique and important statue, but what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Randy Kryn (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Maybe you'll see me as too prejudiced, but do I need to explain myself about something this obvious? If that's not obvious, I'll ask this: Do we need (a flood of) other articles about statues of certain athletes, like this person? Sure, a statue is of an honor, but a standalone article about this statue... Seriously, is this suitable for the project? Other than the inscription,( I see no other content that is not mergeable to the parent article, IMO. I fail to see how this article would grow over time, honestly. (No offense to the article creator.) George Ho (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious while both reading the article and noticing its references. This is the first statue placed outside one of the ballparks in New York City, it honors a person many consider the team's all-time greatest player, and was placed while Seaver was still alive in hopes that he would be aware of it. Statues regularly have articles on Wikipedia, including many pages about sport statues. Notable in several directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to have significant coverage in NY Times and, to a lesser extent, the NY Daily News and Reuters. The proposed statue had coverage several years before it was actually unveiled, and there was also some coverage in CBS Sports and Fox News about the statue having an incorrect jersey number. I think the nominator's argument of WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't exactly applicable here, since one could just rebut with WP:NOTPAPER. However, I will say that the sourcing I found isn't enough to expand this beyond more than a start-class article, at least for the moment. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the initiator, I may have to withdraw this nomination if there are no "delete" or "merge" votes within very short time (i.e. reasonably shorter time than a week) if not less than a week. —George Ho (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to. You can just wait for the natural course of the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mario on this one. Let it run its course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. While there could be an argument to merge with the Tom Seaver article (though not delete), the statue is a separate entity from the person, and so is appropriate for a standalone article, and a detailed discussion of the statue within the Tom Seaver article would give it undue weight in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lamanske

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

No notable coverage in the press, the only sources were compilers with data about the player's performance DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Baseball. DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search came up empty--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG like every MLB player, see e.g. headline stories such as this, and other things such as this and this among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add those to the article DankPedia (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can add them too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MLB players are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11.-- Yankees10 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found by @BeanieFan11 prove notability.
Shrug02 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Clearly a BEFORE fail and another example of why the old NSPORT participation criteria for baseball players (perhaps with some adjustment) would keep us from wasting editor time. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, clearly closing NSPORT was a grevious mistake done me a group of people that didn't know better. Wizardman 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Davenport, Iowa

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

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to History of Davenport, Iowa. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Fort Wayne, Indiana

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

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to the section History of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams

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

The list has no indepedent, reliable, or third party sources, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. I could not find anything online that was independent to establish that this should be a standalone list. Although everything is cited, it uses only primary sources. A possible merger target might be List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams, but non-primary sources would be required. Flibirigit (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The best I could find was [[1]] but without more coverage this is probably a delete for me. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... doesn't seem really that notable.. as it didnt get much independent coverage.. also the list is kinda dated now. Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Templates for discussion

Categories for discussion

Requested moves