Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Sox Nation

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 discussion was Keep Unanimous keep vote. Even the nom didn't cast the delete vote. non-admin closure.--JForget 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Sox Nation

Red Sox Nation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is about a group of people (Boston Red Sox fans) that have absolutely no notability. Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Absolutely no notability? Wha-huh? [1] gets me plenty of results, several of which discuss the actual fan-ship involved. Like [2] this one discussing the economic impact of fans buying ice cream. Now I'm not sure about the quality of this article, I might even suggest moving most of it to something more generically discussing fans of the Boston Red Sox, but I think your claim is a bit excessive. MLB teams are notable. Fans of these teams warrant coverage as well. Thus the only question here is how to cover it. Deletion isn't the way to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Red Sox Nation is the fans. The fans don't have any notability. The Red Sox' fans aren't any more notable than Tampa Bay Devil Rays fans. This article gives the impression that the Red Sox are the only team to have any fans, a bold-faced lie. Are the fans notable? Is the fact that they cheer on the Red Sox what makes it notable? No, so how are they notable then? Ksy92003(talk) 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about an impression given by the article is addressed by editing for NPOV, not deletion. I see no reason to make a distinction between fans of the Red Sox and the Devil Rays or any other pro sports team. I think the fans of any team should be covered to at least some extent. And the notability of this particular group of fans is expressed above. See the source I provided? That's just one of many. There are plenty of others. Like [3][4] [5]. I think there's enough coverage in multiple third-party sources to satisfy notability. I recognize your concerns about NPOV, but that's a cleanup concern, nothing more. To claim absolutely no notability? For the fans of a professional sports team? I'm sorry, but that's clearly incorrect. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This article really gives the impression that the Boston Red Sox are the only professional sports team with fans, and to have an entire article about the fans of one team that aren't any more notable than those of any other team in any sport seems unfair... and you say "To claim absolutely no notability? For the fans of a professional sports team? I'm sorry, but that's clearly incorrect." Do you know how many professional sports teams there are in the world? Thousands and thousands. What makes Red Sox fans any more notable than Devil Rays fans, Kansas City Royals fans, Pittsburgh Pirates fan, etc.? Ksy92003(talk) 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, any impression get from an article is addressed by editing for NPOV, not deletion. And no, I don't see them as particularly more notable than any of those other teams fans. If you believe Wikipedia's coverage of them isn't sufficient, then it would not be that this article exists, but that those articles aren't sufficient. I suggest improving them. I really think you're confusing "notability" with "neutrality" . The two are not the same concept. Whether or not the Red Sox Nation is notable doesn't depend on fans of the Royals, the Colts, or the Whalers. It depends on the existing coverage of the Red Sox Nation. Which exists, as evidenced by the articles I've provided. FrozenPurpleCube 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The issue is not if the members of Red Sox Nation are notable individually, but rather if the collective is notable, just as it would be for any other collection of people. Red Sox Nation is so notable, that it was the subject of Fever Pitch. The article may need major clean up, but not deletion. BTW, the nominator's comment about the "bold-faced lie" is a bit over the top.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - All sports teams have fans, agreed. But it is naive to assume that all fans everywhere are the same, or to deny the cultural relevance of the unique cult-like followings that certain teams enjoy. Red Sox fans are generally considered to be more of a vocal, historic, and cohesive entity than those of other teams. Much like Raider Nation, Cardinal Nation, or the Barmy Army, to name a few relevant examples, Red Sox Nation is universally recognized in the baseball world as an important part of the local sports scene, and is significant enough to merit its own article independent of the Boston Red Sox article. -- Elcocinero 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a sports fan, let alone a baseball fan, let alone a Sox fan, but the significance of this horde group has been quite plain to me. —SlamDiego_←T 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Could use some tidying up, sorting, citation, and conversion to prose, but the third-party material to do so. Keep. -- saberwyn 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per After Midnight (whose username I thoroughly enjoy). I sympathize with the arguments for deletion but I think the collective is notable as a whole. The article is definitely in need of serious attention but I think with more sources, more NPOV, and maybe a discussion of the origins of the term might make it a worthwhile article. --Midnightdreary 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article on this obnoxious group of people. A Lexis Nexis search reulted in 114 articles in just the past few months. The term is widely used on SportsCenter and the like. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:47, 5 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.