Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball jargon

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as useful reference as decided three months ago. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A useful and well established article. PJM 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - And maybe the guideline should be changed for eminently notable exceptions. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As I said before, likely nominated by someone who hates baseball. Wahkeenah 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That one user, with the German name which roughly translates as "Breakfast service", has marked several of the Jargon pages the same way, so evidently he wants to make toast of these pages. In fact, since August he/she/it has contributed nothing [1] except requests for deletion. Wahkeenah 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I mainly edit under another name, since I don't want to get into deletion wars. Frühstücksdienst 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I reckon you deserve some points for admitting to being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously useful glossary. Change the policy. Bhoeble 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep An essential part of Wikipedia's coverage of baseball, or of any other sport with lots of terminology (which is probably all of them). ReeseM 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And I say you are picking on these things for personal reasons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material).--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who says what is an encyclopedia? I say this is a valuable part of encyclopedic coverage of baseball. Golfcam 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for people like me who don't know about baseball. squell 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Transwiki Baseball Slang should be added to the list, but the whole thing is better suited to be a Wiktionary *

appendix. --Karnesky 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I responded on another AfD, we can make interwiki links. Any wikipedia article which referenced this would still point to the article on Wiktionary. It would be just as useful there, and may be a better fit with the intent and policies of that wiki than this one. --Karnesky 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, honestly, the information is useful, encyclopeadic, and better done as a collection that as individual articles. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball jargon

Nomination on the grounds that this is a slang or usage guide, in violation of WP:NOT. While an article about baseball jargon as a whole is acceptable, this is a list of jargon terms, not an article about the jargon as a whole. Note that the exceptions in WP:NOT 1.2.3 only apply to clarifying meaning when jargon is used in an article about something else (not the case here) or "special cases" about "an essential piece of slang" (not the case here) don't protect it. Informative and interesting, certainly (at least to some people), but that is not enough to excuse the fact that this is a list of definitions, not an article. The Literate Engineer 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep Seems like a spiteful nomination (or at least done purely out of principal), as I cited this basball article article as an example in another AfD discussion. Sorry baseball fans... I had no idea it would get this reaction. As for why to keep this article... it falls clearly under WP:NOT 1.5.2 which allows for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This provides extensive commentary and more importantly links to many baseball articles, and it cleraly helps to organize them. I guess I'll stop citing articles I actually care about as examples... --W.marsh 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I accept that this wasn't done out of spite thanks to communication from the nom. --W.marsh 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see that communication anywhere here. How's about posting it so we can see what this wiki-nanny's reasoning was, and why he thinks this is less encyclopedic than lists of Penthouse Pets? Wahkeenah
    • It's on my talk page and his. But please don't make personal attacks... The Literate Engineer just happens to have a different opinion than me (and apparently you). --W.marsh 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, he personally attacked this page, so he has it coming. I'd like to know why he thinks this page is any less worthy than the others I've mentioned. But I don't expect an explanation, because their type also deems the rest of us to be part of the Great Unwashed. Wahkeenah 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's got to be a nomination by someone who hates baseball or regards it as unworthy. Why pick on baseball and not attack lists of Playboy Playmates and other such "encyclopedic" data??? Wahkeenah 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An excellent article. Durova 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like a useful article to me. --Bachrach44 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. WP:NOT 1.2.3 is in my opinion to stop articles on singular slang terms, not for lists like did. - Andre Engels 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Andre Engels. Useful list. It helps writing baseball articles considerably easier because now some terms can be used without repeatedly explaining them. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments Herostratus 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep useful to baseball fans and those who want to understand them --Rogerd 15:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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.