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 procedural keep. Consensus is that it is too difficult for the community to properly assess these articles in a bundled AFD. No prejudice against speedily re-nominating each article individually. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historic baseball plays

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Appreciating the good faith here, I believe these articles to be unnecessary content forks. The first edit in each of these articles provides proper attribution for all of the content that these articles were copied from. None of them are so troublesome that a split is necessary. These events, the Buckner error, the Sid Bream slide, the bat flip, the call from the 1985 World Series, and famous home runs, are not independently notable of the playoff series they occurred in. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? There's already a separate article on Kirk Gibson's home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series. Why isn't that particular article for the matter, up for deletion in itself? What makes the Gibson home run independent notable enough to have its own article and yet not the other ones? To put things into some perspective, Bill Mazeroski and Joe Carter are the only players in MLB history to date, to hit a World Series clinching home run. Are you saying that one there own, they aren't independently notable enough when compared to what Kirk Gibson did in only the first game of the World Series? The fact that the World Series ended on a walk-off home run only twice in its 100 plus year history, should be default or design by notable within themselves. What is the criteria for a independently notable baseball play if by they are by rationale, are already covered in the playoff series that they occurred in. Also, who is to ultimately determine that said plays aren't in the greater shape of things notable enough on their own other than in your personal opinion and point of view? BornonJune8, (talk) 3:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep all with no prejudice toward renominating articles on an individual basis. The level of notability can vary from play to play so an WP:ALLORNOTHING nomination does not seem appropriate here. Some of these plays directly led to a team winning (or losing) a championship and precedent set in similar articles from other sports (e.g. The Block (basketball)) indicates that such plays are notable independently of their playoff series. Frank Anchor 03:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Anchor I chose to nominate these all together because they were created by the same user with essentially the same style of forking. Reywas92 did a better job than I did of explaining the problems, so check out their rationale in case you haven't seen it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu your rationale is noted and understood. I just see a vast difference between the level of notability of, for example Bautista's bat flip (a somewhat common "show-off" move), and Buckner's error or Carter's home run (each of which literally decided a championship). I am admittedly not as familiar with the MLB Wikiproject than I am with the NBA and NFL projects, but well-sourced articles for championship-altering plays in those are routinely kept independently of the specific game or series in those sports. I agree the prose and sourcing could be improved on whichever articles are worth keeping. Frank Anchor 12:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete all Reviewing each one of these, I see no basis whatsoever for separate articles. It's honestly embarassing how little of these articles are about the plays themselves, as well as the duplication. Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run begins with 597 words of background that have literally nothing to do about Carter or the article's subject and is more appriate at 1993 World Series. Then Joe_Carter's_1993_World_Series_home_run#The_setup is a copy-paste of 1993_World_Series#Game_6 and Joe_Carter's_1993_World_Series_home_run#The_calls is a copy-paste of 1993_World_Series#The_Joe_Carter_home_run_calls. Bill Buckner's 1986 World Series error again begins with a huge background that is not about the error, then a short description of the play that goes at 1986_World_Series#Game_6. I'm struggling to see how it's encyclopedic to quote verbatim lengthy calls by announcers: if what they said was notable, highlight selective quotes rather than assume this full description belongs. Then there's too much overly detailed play-by-plays in others. And what the hell does 90% of The_Slide_(Atlanta_Braves)#Aftermath actually have to do with the Slide?? Talk of division realignment and that it took 20 years to have another winning season are irrelevant to the play in particular and makes for bad writing. Carlton Fisk's 1975 World Series home run has, again, WAY too much irrelevant background and aftermath that has nothing to do with the nominal subject and another section that's a copy-paste of Carlton_Fisk#The_Fisk_Foul_Pole. Please don't give us this procedural keep crap: these are all related articles from the same author with the same huge, intrinsic problems – they can likewise be redirected without prejudice toward recreating on an individual basis, limited to directly relevant and original content. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 individual nominations of articles with vastly different levels of notability is not "procedural crap." I agree that the articles could use a makeover, but some are notable topics (independent of the playoff series they are a part of), so the answer is re-writing, not deletion. Frank Anchor 12:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, so we can have a procedural merge or perhaps direction to rewrite in drafts too. Procedural keeps merely when several similar articles are nominated together stifle discussion and paralyze the process when the volume of articles created is not possible to always address one at a time. Even if there is some coverage about the individual plays, much of that is copied and pasted from the main article or easily merged to the main articles and I give little weight to an argument that if one could be kept separate in some form, we can't still address these together. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The volume of articles created is not possible to always address one at a time" Seriously? This is only nine articles. That is not anywhere near a volume so high it would make these impossible to address one at a time. Frank Anchor 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all .. the notability of these individual plays is questionable.. Bautista's bat flip needs it's own article? Really? There have been lots of similar "bat flip" moments that have had social media attention.. none of them need an article.. that one was forgotten as soon as the playoffs moved to the next round. "The Call" ?? How would anyone even know from the article title that it referred to a bad call in a particular world series game? The World Series home runs are more notable but they are all covered within the particular world series articles. Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanneraol You brought up Jose Bautista's bat flip and question why it needs an article. Why is that particular bat flip "notable" over similar ones? For starters, Bautista's "bat flip" happened during the postseason in a decisive fifth game, that the Toronto Blue Jays ultimately won. That bat flip sent the Blue Jays to the League Championship Series for the first time since 1993. By design, of something like that happens during the playoffs than any old regular season game, it's naturally going to get more coverage. And who is to say that Bautista's bat flip is forgotten? The fact that it had so much social media attention should make automatically make it notable in the first place much less get its own article. It should be noted that Jose Bautista's bat flip was the culmination of a 53 minute long seventh inning. So it wasn't just some regular old bat flip that we've already seen, do to the context leading up to that particular moment. As for the call in the 1985 World Series, well the fact that it happened during the World Series and depending on your point of view, it may have been a key factor in why the St. Louis Cardinals not only lost Game 6, but Game 7 the next night makes it stand out. Again, it's very rare that a championship series or game is likely decided in no small part to an official's poor judgement during a key moment. I must stress that Don Denkinger's call happened during the World Series and it in all likelihood, provided Kansas City a momentum swing that they needed to come back and win not only Game 6 but Game 7 (keep in mind that Denkinger in Game 7, was now the home plate umpire). Again, everything needs to be understood and looked at in the proper context. BornonJune8 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 The slide on its own, is symbolic or significant because it simply put, marked the end of the Pittsburgh Pirates' relevance for over 20 years. The Pirates from 1992, when Sid Bream had his slide to defeat them in the NLCS, to 2012, they didn't finish the season with a winning record. Also, that was the end of the line of the core that included Barry Bonds, Doug Drabek, etc. that won three consecutive divisional titles dating back to 1990. It's hard not to talk about the Pirates loss in the 1992 NLCS, without acknowledging that 1992 would be the last time that they would field a competitive team in over two decades. If you have an issue with the way that the articles are written, then why can't you add (if not rewrite/rearrange) additional information to supplement what was already presented. It should also be noted that absolutely little if any of the content in the article on Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run was taken directly from the 1993 World Series article, simply in hopes of avoiding further redundancy. I also don't exactly understand what your issue is with quoting what the broadcasters of said games said during the particular plays. Are you for example, implying that Tom Cheek's "Touch 'em all Joe..." call in the 1993 World Series or Skip Caray's "Braves win, Braves win, Braves win!!!" calls aren't relevant or are insignificant? What is and isn't a "notable" sportscasting call them? BornonJune8 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Slide is part of the Pirates' history, it seems like good content for History_of_the_Pittsburgh_Pirates#Uncertain_future_in_Pittsburgh_(1985-2000) then! And the copy-paste source 1992_National_League_Championship_Series#Game_7 also already describes this part of their history. Okay, if "Touch 'em all Joe" is important, show and discuss why it's important! All you did is blockquote it. What makes Scully's call and Kalas's call and McDonough's call important too? "Braves win": so what? You don't show what makes this call significant beyond merely quoting it. McDonough's call above that merely cites the primary source of a clip of the play and its announcing, so what makes it so relevant? Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu With all due respect, your main rationale behind deletion appears to be that all of those articles were created by me and used essentially the same style of forking. If I only made one or two of those articles, would you have the same sort of complaint? They were always meant to be modified and hopefully improved upon over time through editing. I also still don't understand why you personally feel those particular plays aren't independently notable enough in the greater shape of things. Why do you and Reywas92 choose deletion as an immediate first option instead of rewriting (or if you want to call it that, "fixing/correcting/improving/building upon") the article when that other option is at your disposal? BornonJune8 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Tom Cheek's "Touch e'm all Joe" is among the first things that's listed on Tom Cheek's Wikipedia article. The calls are already important because they concern the very rare occurrence of a World Series concluding on a walk-off home run (only the second time in history). What else does there need to be to explain beyond that. Sean McDonough's call is important as it is because he did the network television broadcast of Game 6 of the 1993 on CBS. The McDounough call was even more significant since that was literally, the very last Major League Baseball game that CBS would televise. And Vin Scully likewise, did the national radio broadcast for CBS Radio. Most people would've presumably heard their calls first. And even the Scully call is considerably more "obscure" than the Tom Cheek or Sean McDonough call. And Harry Kalas' call of the Carter home run is important within itself, since it comes from the Phillies' (the losing side) broadcast. The Kalas call isn't as talked about or replayed as much as say the Tom Cheek or Sean McDonough home run calls. So there's within reason to assume and believe that not a lot of people are aware of what the Phillies broadcasters said and reacted to the home run. So why do you need to pick and choose what is or isn't important in regards to broadcasting calls, when they're all a part of detailing the event's history? And just because the article were or may have been copied and pasted for the most part, doesn't mean that the article can't at all be improved or clarified beyond that starting point. And while we're at it, shouldn't Sid Bream's slide in the 1992 NLCS be just as important to the history of the Atlanta Braves? There were two teams involved after-all, and Atlanta was the one who came out on top in miraculous fashion in the bottom of the 9th in Game 7. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Some of these are clearly notable and significant moments in baseball history that would easily meet WP:GNG. Bill Mazeroski, The Slide, Carlton Fisk, Joe Carter, and Bill Buckner come immediately to mind. Does Jose Bautista flipping a bat rise to that level of significance? Probably not, but that's something that should be hashed out at individual AfD's for these articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Procedural keep, as Ejgreen77 wrote. I came here through the Bautista Bat Flip article, and in that particular case it's got a lot of padding that repeats information that's in 2015 American League Division Series, and I would recommend merging the Bat Flip article into the Division Series article. But the Mazeroski and Carter home runs in particular deserve their own articles, for sure, due to their significance to the history of baseball. So, lumping all of the listed events into one AfD should not be the way to manage them. PK T(alk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is over-reaching. Grouping together by topic and commenting:
- Maz/Fisk/Freese/Carter/Puckett World Series home runs. These all seem to be based on Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run. That article, as are these, is well written but, like Jones (third baseman), after you wipe away the content that has nothing to do with the actual home run, you have a one paragraph article. I believe all of these article might be sustainable if merged in to one WS HR article, but would suggest holding it's own discussion for that.
- Call/Slide/bat flip/error. Again, I believe these plays could be sustained in one "post-season plays" article, but on their own some could be deleted or redirected. One size does not fit all here.
- See also, the articles in Category:Historic baseball plays.
Procedural close and re-evaluate Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close with no prejudice against each article being individually nominated. Too much of a topical mishmash here. Likely to lead to a WP:TRAINWRECK if kept open. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.