Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runs Against Average
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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 07:43Z
[edit] Runs Against Average
Reason Hayford Peirce 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
delete Here are some comments I left a while ago on the Discussion page of the Sabermetrics article, where a link to the Runs Against Average has been put in several times by the same person and deleted by various others: "I'm a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and for the last 4 or 5 years I've been receiving a daily email message from the SABR group in which various members send comments, queries, etc., to a central List (so they call it) about research matters. Then every day the moderator posts the 10-40 messages that have come in that day in a single email to the subscribers to the service. It's sorta like a chat room or newsgroup discussion area, except it's done by email and it's exclusively about research matters, NOT general baseball discussion, such as "who's gonna win the Series". I've just checked my SABR mailbox on Eudora -- there are 3443 separate emails! That means there are probably at least 35,000 to 50,000 individual emails within that group. I've just done a Search for "runs created" -- that returned 265 entries. I Searched for "total player rating" -- that returned 45 entries. I then Searched for "runs against average" -- and got zero entries. "RAA"? -- zero entries. A Google search for "runs against average" only brings in 65 hits -- many of them on blogs. Surely an extraordinarily low total for a generally accepted research tool. So it looks to me that, whatever the merits of the method, it's almost certainly Original Research under the Wiki definition and shouldn't be here." End of my message on the Discussion page. A Google for "total player rating", on the other hand, brings in 121,000 hits! So I'm afraid that this looks like a (possibly very valuable) research tool that, at least in its Wikipedian context, is purely Original Research and should therefore be deleted. I fought the Original Research debate on the other side a couple of years ago and was defeated and now, I think, I see clearly that what I used to argue was wrong. In sum, this RAA is Original Reseach and should be deleted. Hayford Peirce 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried twice to put an "original research" tag on this article, but its creator deleted my tag. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion and recommendation.35.9.6.175 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. If it doesn't have notability within the baseball or Sabremetrics community, as the nominator suggests, there is no way it should have an article. Scottmsg 19:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. I agree with Hayford Pierce's main thrust, that it doesn't appear this methodology has been published anywhere else, and even if it has, it hasn't gained enough attention to be worthy of it's own entry. There are hundreds of new methods and formula for baseball analysis developed each year, and wikipedia should be used to document the few that gain traction, not as a launching pad for new ideas. Anson2995 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely Delete as original research. The creator of RAA keeps deleting tags and ignoring suggestions. There's no question it's original research, and it's not well documented or justified research at that.--Mack2 01:08, 9 February 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.
