Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note

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 delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note

These are nothing but lists of names, duplicating already existing categories. Ezeu 09:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Arizona Diamondbacks/Players of note
• Atlanta Braves players of note
• Baltimore Orioles/Players of note
• Chicago Cubs/Players of note
• Cincinnati Reds/Players of note
• Cleveland Indians/Players of note
• Colorado Rockies players of note
• Detroit Tigers players of note
• Florida Marlins players of note
• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Players of note
• Los Angeles Dodgers/Players of note
• Milwaukee Brewers/Players of note
• Minnesota Twins players of note
• New York Yankees players of note
• Notable players for the Philadelphia Phillies
• Oakland Athletics/Players of note
• Pittsburgh Pirates/Players of note
• San Diego Padres: Players of Note
• San Francisco Giants/Players of note
• St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note
• Tampa Bay Devil Rays/Players of note
• Texas Rangers/Players of note
• Toronto Blue Jays/Players of note

• Delete: per nom. Far too arbitrary. These should be highlighted in the team articles - and that's all. -- Wknight94 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Arbitrary, original research. Category suffices. I don't like articles with / in them. MLA 10:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither do most other editors. That's why there's a policy stating that subpages are a bad thing. That's what that naming convention reads like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them for reasons stated above. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Same logic as earlier AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Mariners/Players of note -- GWO
• Delete - Serve no encyclopaedic purpose that categories don't already cover. The Disco King 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Last year, a user went around and split up the team pages for every MLB team, creating multiple subpages. These are decidedly not the same as the categories, as the categories are much, much larger than the notable players lists. The lists should be merged back into their parent articles so that the MLB team articles match the format of teams in other major sports. - EurekaLott 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV with no definable standards. If these lists were designed to be more selective than the categories, they're not doing very well. (As a Cardinals fan, I doubt you'd find anyone in St. Louis who would describe Marlon Anderson or Kiko Calero deserving of being listed next to Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds or the best player in baseball.) - Fan1967 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO. ScottW 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete THree strikes... Dominick ^(TALK) 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, no criteria for inclusion, arbitrary. SM247 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for reasons cited above. --Disavian 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What grounds are there for speedy delete as opposed to delete? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Right now, only for Houston Astros/Players of note is there, where you can argue it A3 (empty). None of the populated lists qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the respective main articles and then delete the resulting emptied pages. This was already done for the Houston Astros, although Houston Astros/Players of note exists as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• With some basic standards (All-Stars and other players of 10 or more years, for instance), these could be useful. The categories include everone with at least one appearance, which isn't particularly helpful. MisfitToys 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there are already All-Star-related categories. And I'd support categories like "St. Louis Cardinals with ten years experience" - or something to that effect. Just to say "Players of note" is too general. I'm sure someone could think of something more definitive. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there are already too many categories like that; most of the All-Star categories could be replaced by articles on the individual games. Some of the bio articles are going to end up with 50 to 60 categories, which IMO is overdoing it. MisfitToys 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I won't comment on category count. I've never seen consensus on how many are too many. If, instead of categories, you want lists of people with 5+ years experience on a team, I'm happy with that too. Just not something as generic as "Players of note". It seems like some people run into Joe Shmoe at the grocery store and get an autograph - and that means they qualify as a player of note. That I don't like. Just my opinion... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2006 (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.