Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power pitcher

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 keep all three articles. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power pitcher

Power pitcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per WP:DP - this article content is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", as this is more an colloquialism for baseball fans; and a very subjective topic. While the information has been sourced, the sourced information is really not applicable to the perceived goal of the article. Further, one of the sources has been "misquoted", and it makes a major difference. It's a great effort, but that is a separate issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated previously
Control pitcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Fireballer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm excusing myself from this discussion entirely. Hence I'm striking my above comments and they should not be considered when determining the outcome of this AFD. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - They all play the same position. Just because they do their jobs differently from one another does not mean they each get their own article. Where are the Shortstop that steals bases and Shortstop that doesn't steal bases articles? They don't exist, because they all play the same position and any different characteristics of the players can go on the position articles themselves.►Chris Nelson 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    You guys were actually pretty quick on this, i'm actually going to be adding similar articles to this. As Tony is already against this, i don't know that adding more would somehow convince him otherwise, but Chris - you may want to withold your statments for just a few minutes in case you decide you are on the keep side of the issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'll never be on the keep side of the issue, I believe there is no logic to its existence.►Chris Nelson 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    COMMENT power pitcher and control pitcher were created in support of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chris Young (pitcher) so that readers don't have to read a lengthy pitcher article to understand the two main pticher types. I am sure there are several articles that would be better served with such articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Herculean-like Strong" Keep - There are different types of pitchers in the same way that there are different positions: left fielder, right fielder, center fielder, first baseman, shortstop, etc. They all do one thing: field, yet they all do it differently. Shortstops and first baseman field ground balls, the LF, RF, and CFs all field flyballs and ground balls through the infield. Control pitchers throw for accuracy, power pitchers throw for strikeouts, starting pitchers pitch for distance, relief pitchers pitch a lot less for quick outs. Set-up men are there to protect the lead... they all do different jobs, and we have different articles for the different infield and outfield positions, so I don't think there should be any reason to not have different articles for the different type of pitchers who all play differently. For example, Tim Wakefield is a pitcher who throws for accuracy, a control pitcher, while Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson are power pitchers; they throw for strikeouts. Are you denying that there's a difference between starting pitchers and relief pitchers? No; they have the same job, but they do it differently. There are different expectations of them by their managers and pitching coaches. You say "Just because they do their jobs differently from one another does not mean they each get their own article." So what, is what I have to say to that. Pens, pencils, markers, crayons, etc. all do the job of making marks on paper. But they all have their own separate articles because they are all different, much in the same way that all pitchers do the same job, yet they are all different. Set-up men, closers, middle relief pitchers, long relief pitchers, and starting pitchers all pitch, but they all have different responsibilities. Control pitchers have the job of inducing lazy fly balls or ground balls. Power pitchers have the job of striking out their opponents. Same job, yet they do them differently. Although they are both pitchers, they still have a vast majority of differences. And Chrisjnelson, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "We don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Ksy92003(talk) 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Basic characteristics of Young's style should be in HIS article.►Chris Nelson 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    But the thing is, there's either logic for both Power pitcher and the articles I made up to exist, or there's no logic for either. The logic is the same.►Chris Nelson 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment also, Jmfangio, I'd have to disagree with your statement that this article is "not suitable for an encyclopedia." Why is it not of encyclopedic value? Because it's a baseball term? That's not a logical reason. There are other articles that are far less encyclopedic. "Power pitcher" is really notable because baseball teams have a couple power pitchers and other control pitchers. In the baseball world, we see them all as very different in the way that they all have different expectations by their managers and teams. Ksy92003(talk) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    They all do the same thing.►Chris Nelson 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    And what to you mean they have to have the same logic or no logic? That's like you're comparing apples and oranges. They are two different things entirely, and you can't compare two entirely different objects. And as far as the "Shortstops that don't steal bases," shortstops aren't hired by teams to steal bases. That's not their job. Their job is to play shortstop. Shortstops that steal bases and shortstops that don't both play the shortstop position in exactly the same way. But power pitchers throw strikeouts and control pitchers don't try to do that. That's what makes them different. And again, you can't compare apples to oranges. Ksy92003(talk) 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Okay fine - Home run hitters and Singles hitters. Apples to apples.►Chris Nelson 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree that the content is nonencyclopedic; I also think it is demonstrably false that the content is too subjective to be encyclopedic. There is widespread consensus on which pitchers are power pitchers and which are control pitchers and on how to distinguish the two statistically. -- Dominus 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Keep control pitcher; redirect fireballer to power pitcher. -- Dominus 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Still VERY subjective.►Chris Nelson 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Are you listening to me, Chris? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You can't use as a reason for voting to delete an article that "Oh, but we don't have articles on X, so we can't have an article on Y. Ksy92003(talk) 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but there are illogical things about that policy. So screw it, this makes more sense.►Chris Nelson 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You seem to have added fireballer, which is a very colloquial term for power pitcher. It should be redirected and merged into power pitcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I think there are several types of deceptive pitchers who are neither power nor control pitchers. I think one type of deceptive pitcher is a knuckleballer. I also think some great pitchers have been curveball and screwball pitchers who are trying to fool hitters. I am not sure these deceptive pitchers are control pitchers, but with the template all parties interested in pitchers will be free to make additions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Screw it, this makes more sense?" What kind of crap is that, Chris? Also, conversely that's like saying that we have to have articles about everything just because we have something. So, just because I have a dog, does that mean that I have to have all the dogs in the world? You also take an "All of nothing" approach. You say that either we have everything or we have nothing. Stick to this article, not on other articles that we don't have. Ksy92003(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying this article shouldn't exist because those others don't. If there wasn't an Article on Georgia, I wouldn't say there shouldn't be an article on Tennessee. What I'm saying is that this article should not exist for the same reason those other articles do not exist already - not enough reason. It makes no sense to split up articles about sports positions just because they don't all do everything the same way. You could theoretically do that for every position in every sport. But we don't, because those differences alone do not warrant another article. The solution that should be obvious is the just have Pitcher and have subsections about different kinds of pitchers. There should not be possession and speed receiver articles. There should not be power and and speed running back articles. And there should not be power and control pitcher articles. All for the same reasons. Articles on athletic positions are enough, and there should be subsections for different types.►Chris Nelson 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough basis for full article. Content belongs under pitcher. This article was once merged into pitcher per talk page and advertised merger banner. Then someone resurrected the article. Cuvette 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important baseball term used in a multitude of broadcasts, articles, and conversations about baseball. And, quite a few Wikipedia articles. Kinston eagle 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I don't know that you need a whole article about power pitcher. Can't you just explain the different types of pitchers in the pitcher article? I don't think the distinction between a power pitcher and a control pitcher is great enough.. not the same as a reliever and a starter.. who have different tasks. Spanneraol 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I would say that this supports delete. I think that the talk page is really where most of the discussion should go so i'm going to go and open it up. This way we can leave this page for voting. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. A deletion discussion is not a vote. Kinston eagle 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The point is that places like Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Pitching_style need explanation for the common fan. A brief article is superior for them than wading through a larger all-encompassing and somewhat irrelevant article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Tony, it seems to me that the issue is explained fairly well in the Chris Young article itself.. the concept isn't that complicated that it really takes a whole other article to explain it Spanneraol 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Young is a WP:FAC, which means it is probably written more clearly than most articles that would benefit from linkage to the articles in question. Whether or not you can glean the difference from the Young article hundreds of other pitcher articles could benefit from links to this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all into a pitcher article. There is not enough sources to justify this article Corpx 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kinston eagle - i'm not following. I never said that people should assert a recommendation (aka - a "vote" of sorts) without discussing. I suggested that the discussion on the talk page and "votes" (which are recommendations rather than true votes - this isn't a WP:STRAW anyway) here. WP:CON might be easier to obtain that way. As it doesn't appear that all the parties are familiar with WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD (such as having the primary editor identify themselves); I suggested the talk page so that adjustments could be made without confusing the consensus. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this and Control pitcher, perfectly reasonable explications of baseball concepts. If you don't believe that there are enough sources to support an article, go check out a copy of a book like The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers and read it. Go ahead, I'll wait... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all (back) into pitcher or spawn a new Pitching techniques article if the parent is too long or there's enough info about these for their own page. That way the various terms for each type of pitcher can be covered ("deceptive pitcher", "knuckleballer", "power pitcher", etc.) together, solves problems of multiple terms for the same or overlapping types, explain/compare/contrast instead of trying to explain each on its own or having to add somewhat boilerplate context material on each. This solves the concern of having to "wade through" the whole pitcher article (though one can link to sections regardless). Certainly the topic of pitching styles and types is encyclopediac, no need for lots of less-formal pages and trying to assert notability for each in particular. DMacks 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This comes close to being "unsourced". While you have the guts, at least, to make sources, you need to improve in that respect. Using the word "velocity" and citing to Merriam-Webster doesn't add anything to the article. Suggestion: google the phrase "power pitcher" and read some more. Mandsford 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep: per TonyTheTiger. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge all into a section of pitcher. The individual articles are not notable enough to stand alone, but a section in the main article is easily acceptable. Realkyhick 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into pitcher. I'm usually for keeping all types of articles, but in this case, the terms are too vague to warrant their own articles. The subject matter fits well within pitcher though. X96lee15 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Anyone who considers the difference between a pitcher who succeeds using velocity and one who succeeds using accuracy to be a vague difference may not understand baseball well enough to warrant a vote. It would be like holding a business discussion about companies who compete on price and those who compete on quality and describing the difference as vague. They are two different types of pitchers just like they are two different business models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Vague" as in "the categories are not mutually exclusive", not "vague" as in "definition of term". But thanks for giving me the example, it really helped with the discussion. X96lee15 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question to all If we did a "merge", might i suggest that we only did a partial merge. Again, the concept isn't inherently bad, but the information available in these articles is somewhat misleading and the sources are not really "applicable" as they exist. Would that be agreeable? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    As TonyTheTiger has been the only user to edit the article, he knows more about the information in the article than any of us. If the article is merged, then I suggest that he play a huge part in merging the information. But first things first: let's decide whether the article should exist or not, merged or whatever, and then decide what should be merged to where, etc. I still hold my "keep" opinion, but let's just wait for this to play out before discussing what to do with the information if it's deleted or merged or whatever. It still could be kept. Ksy92003(talk) 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The AFD nominator has withdrawn his nomination statement. Does that make this AFD moot?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    That's what I'm thinking... that will be up to the closing admin to determine, I suppose. Ksy92003(talk) 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, it does not make it moot as there are delete/merge votes here Corpx 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    This is my luck, I have an article headed to no consensus on its own talk page merger discussion. People get disatisfied with that result and AfD it. Then withdraw their AfD statements and it is still on the fence about to get pushed over into AfD neverland. This AfD should have never happened and there is a lot of opposition to the merger. I hope it is enough to "confirm" the no consensus that should have been a satisfactory resolution. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Power keep per other Keep comments above. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A number of these terms, such as "fireballer" and "control pitcher" are already in the List of baseball jargon, which is a glossary of everyday, mainly informal terminology that's part of the game of baseball as it is played, watched, broadcast, and analyzed but doesn't need to have a separate WP article nor is it likely to be covered in some other general article. IMO, quite a few separate articles on everyday terminology can be deleted, and readers will find both definitions and explanations (and links to main articles and references when appropriate) in the glossary.--Mack2 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Numerous terms on the list you mention have {{Main}} tags, including Control pitcher. The fact that a one line definition in a list has a dedicated main article is a good thing and helps the encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all - If enough reliable sources think the topics are good enough for their publication, who are any of us to say that the same topic is not suitable for this encyclopedia? There a lot of questions these articles can explore - the meaning of Power pitcher and how that meaning may have changed over time, details on those who were/are considered Power pitcher's and any comparisons among that group, power picture's influence on the game and influence on the game over time, etc. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reputable sources seem to make a notable distinction, and it seems encyclopedic enough to me. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Power pitcher and Control pitcher; redirect Fireballer to Power pitcher (since these are essentially synonymous terms). These topics easily meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines—that is, they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there are reliable sources and interested editors to work on these articles, and they are important to the sport of baseball. BRMo 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ksy92003.--Truest blue 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ksy92003. This article is encyclopedic. --Borgardetalk 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's like a wrong convention in here.►Chris Nelson 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris, who are you to say that our opinions are wrong? Look, I know I've supported you in the past, but just because you have one opinion doesn't mean everybody else is wrong because they share a different opinion, okay? Ksy92003(talk) 04:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article is still young, how can it be improved on if you delete it? merging the whole series of article related to this one would make the main Pitcher article stupidly long. --Dan027 07:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is well referenced, its notable, its young, it deserves to be kept --Childzy ₪ Talk 22:51, 20 August 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.