Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-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 of the debate was Merge and redirect to Baseball terminology. There's a strong keep consensus here but the article as stands is a stub and a dictionary definition. Given it's already detailed at Baseball terminology and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I see no reason not to close as a merge and redirect, since a merge and redirect is keeping the information. If and when the definition is expanded into an encyclopedic article, I see no reason why it couldn't be broken out again. Hiding Talk 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-hitter

Appears to be a non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Prod disputed. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh, what? One hitter is absolutely a well-known, undisputed baseball statistic and phrase, used constantly when it occurs. Absolutely notable, verifiable, and stable. Strongest possible keep and expand further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I also apologise for my tone here. It dawned on me that you might not be from America and not know baseball, which may be the case here. No offense meant in any regard, although it's still an incredibly notable part of baseball. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If heard of it, i've never done it, but I have heard of it. ILovEPlankton 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- per jeff. Reyk YO! 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's obviously notable, but would someone explain why the article is more than a dic.def.? I think that should be the issue we're focused on. Perhaps it can be expanded with famous examples or something, but it's not clear to me as someone with almost no knowledge of baseball. Metamagician3000 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the article's flaw, current;y. It can easily be expanded, however, with more explanation, perhaps examples of one-hitters, etc. Unlike the commenter's words below, more can be said. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki It's a dicdef, and nothing more can be said than is already there. Fan1967 02:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 'Tis Encyclopedic --Andy123(talk) 02:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly notable and verifiable, although as it stands it's just a dicdef. But it could be expanded --Deville (Talk) 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary --die Baumfabrik 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as probably unexpandable —porges(talk) 04:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. There is plenty to expand on. Who has and when they did achieve a one-hitter, notable one-hitters, more or less everything found on No hitter. SorryGuy 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this is a verifiable and common thing in the baseball community, very well known. -- Patman2648 06:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely a real term and an encyclopedic topic. The article could use to be expanded, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, notable and worthwhile article. Needs to become similiar to No Hitter article. SorryGuy 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As a baseball fan: Strong delete/transwiki. The term "one hitter" is self-explanatory and it's not as though it's a monumentous event when it happens, which is fairly often. It makes about as much sense to have Two-hitter, Three-hitter, etc. It's all or nothing in this case -- you either pitched a No hitter or you just had a good game. On the other hand if someone wants to turn this into an article about marijuana smoking accessories be my guest. — GT 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Add to Baseball terminology and redirect. -- GWO
  • Keep for now, although I would not revert a redirect per GWO if nothing was added after a couple months. youngamerican (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baseball terminology -- Ned Scott 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not a neologism, but WP:NOT a dictionary M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep obviously notable term, can be made more then a dict-def. -Mask 22:18, 4 May 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.