Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Verlander's No-hitter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Verlander's No-hitter

Do we really need articles on every no-hitter, while this is a rather rare event, there is no reason why this no-hitter is special then any other, including perfect games or any other game for that matter. Wikipedia isn't a place for current sports news. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not even worth a redirect. Carom 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series doesn't merit its own article, then this doesn't stand a chance. Caknuck 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't believe this article does not document a "current" event (while it did happen this year, the facts in the article will not change over time). The fact that other no-hitter/perfect game articles do not exist is not a valid reason to delete this article; Larsen's perfect game probably does merit its own article anyway. I contend that the article is about a notable event as no-hitters are very rare. X96lee15 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Caknuck. —ShiningEyes 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No-hitters are not that rare. Perfect games are, though, and likely deserving of their own articles. Realkyhick 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's sufficient to include details of this game in Verlander's article and it should be mentioned in 2007 in baseball and 2007 Detroit Tigers season. It doesn't need its own article.
  • Merge. This info should be tightened up and merged into the Verlander article in my opinion. There's plenty of room for expanding the no hitter section on his article. If it were to be kept, I would hope that the title would at least be changed. It kind of sounds like the creator has assumed that Jason will never have another one. If any individual games do deserve their own articles, it's perfect games. There's plenty of info to work with out there. There are whole books devoted to perfect games and their backstories. Kinston eagle 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge I think the main article is more then enough for this event.--JForget 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete enough information is covered on the subject in Justin Verlander already. T Rex | talk 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete If this was a perfect game I'd say otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems just wrong-headed, if not foolish to say it is a current sports event or "news", as the original nominator said. It is a historical event that will remain unchanged forever. Unless Verlander pitches another no-hitter, I cannot image it being reduced in signifigance as time goes by. If other no hitters lack articles, then they might be added in the future. The article is large, not just a whimpy little two paragraph thing like too many articles on wikipedia and it might be a very interseting article to read in ten years or twenty years time- after all for Tiger fans it is one of six in their history, delete it now and you are denying future generations of this inning by inning analysis. As Reverend Lovejoy's wife says- "think of the children!" --Mikerussell 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - A person can look at the box score and see what happened. I'd encourage to creator to make this at wikinews, where it would be much more appropriate. Corpx 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I have been going to major league games since I was in grade 2 or something and I still have no idea how to read a box score. I thought only losers or electrical engineers sat in the crowd pissing away the joy of being there by recording it on to a scrap of paper. I think my girlfriend once smacked me in the head for just helping the nerd besides us with something he missed when he ran to washroom. My point- box scores are for losers. This article should remain it is much better then some stupid box score. Plus, it is not wikinews. The link Corpx just gives is proof against including it wikinews, not including it. --Mikerussell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is no more deserving of an article than Barry Bonds breaking the record. When that happens, should there be an article about how he walked to the plate, the pitch counts, how he swung, where the ball landed etc? This was not even a perfect game :) Corpx 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am having trouble seeing any logic in the above statement. You are comparing a career achievement that took 15 seasons to accomplish with a single game event? Makes absolutely no sense. The article represents what a box score attempts to do- a discrete event that in this case is historically lasting and unchanging. A slice of permamnent Detroit Tiger history. "This was not even a perfect game"- where in wikipedia or baseball tradition does it say a perfect game deserves an article and a no-hitter doesn't? Pure arbitrary decision on your part, your subjective opinion alone, that says a perfect game deserves inclusion. The no-hitter certainly is a rare enough event to be notable, and I I just cannot understand with so much junk on wikipedia this deserves to be censored. It is factual, it has length and footnotes plus photos. It really has a lasting interest and will be read for many years to come. It certainly isn't recent news. --Mikerussell 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In attempting to apply real-world notability standards, consider this: a no-hitter is someting you tell people about when you come in to work the next day. A perfect game is something you tell your grandchildren about. There have been 17 perfect games in MLB history and 234 no-hitters, of which 17 were also perfect games. The problem for both achievements is that no-hitters make dull reading, and perfect games are worse - 27 up, 27 down. There's just not much to say. We have a List of Major League Baseball no-hitters already, and I just don't see that 234 articles on no-hitters are worthwhile if we can't even get 17 articles on perfect games - the most inherently notable single-game event in baseball. Inning-by-inning accounts of baseball games are straying into baseballcruft territory, which is (thankfully) relatively absent from Wikipedia. Just because there are 10,000 articles on Pokemon doesn't justify an equivalent degree of detail for baseball. Acroterion (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you compare this to football, it'd be like writing an article every time a QB passes for over 500 yards, with descriptions on each play. I just dont think play by play or inning by inning level summary is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Is there really historic notability for a no hitter? No, in my opinion Corpx 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Verlander's profile. That seems fair enough. Otherwise, you're going to have 200+ other articles about no-hitters in Wikipedia. Chengwes 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - it's obviously a significant career achievement for a pitcher and deserves to be in the pitcher's article. What it needs is a good bit of gopyeditting in the merge to remove the excess detail. For comparison purposes, Dave Stieb's no-hitter, which stands as the first and only no-hiiter in franchise history for the Blue Jays is dealt with in a single sentence in his article. -- Whpq 13:38, 31 July 2007 (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.