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. --Core desat 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players[edit]

Per WP:FIVE (trivia collection) and "wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate info" - What's the point of sorting retired MLB players by age? Corpx 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Indiscriminate Collection. The list is also difficult to maintain, the article list the 32 oldest living ex-MLB players. Why isn't it the oldest 10? 50? A list of oldest currently active players makes more logical sense to me. Useight 05:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmaintainable (or difficult to maintain) list of indiscriminate info per above. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - superβεεcat 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an over categorization to list two unrelated/non-notable traits. Unless the age of a major league baseball player has significant bearing on their career, it should go. Spellcast 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a listcruft and unmaintainable article.--JForget 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is readily verifiable information of a type that, contrary to some of the suggestions above, is often sought after by fans. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indeed a maintainable article, and many fans are interested in this type of information. Valadius 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING shouldn't be a reason to keep Corpx 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but interesting to many people, and notable and verifiable, is a reasonable basis for keeping, in my view. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is highly relevant for baseball fans, as it was front page news on ESPN.com this morning when Rollie Stiles (aged 100) died. The information is useful to baseball historians and easily verifiable. EnjoysButter 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list that is referenced often by baseball historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.95.174 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Baseball historians are fascinated by information that would appear to be insignificant to the average person. Setting a year of birth that yields a list of all living former major leaguers who have reached age 90 results in a legitimate parameter and in no way is "indiscriminate information." Detour1102 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — Detour1102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Thanks to sites like MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com, this is easy to keep track of, and fascinating to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.37.21 (talk • contribs)
Keep Baseball and other major sports enjoy a higher level of protection on Wikipedia. Isn't there a Wikipedia project on major league baseball players? I know that there's one on NFL players. Anyway, this list is not a "indiscriminate information" (a phrase that gets tossed around so casually, nobody takes it seriously) or difficult to maintain. As for why there are 32 players, I think those are the ones who played nine innings and gone into extra ones, all of them being over age 90. Mandsford 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of making a list of a group of people by their age? I think a list like this could be made for every category that includes people. Age has no bearing on their former status as MLB players. Corpx 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't just list players by age, it also includes a bit about their careers. The page answers questions like 'Who is the oldest living Dodger?' or 'How many ex-MLBers are currently over age 95?' Of course age has a bearing on these questions. EnjoysButter

Isnt that trivial information? Corpx 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it notable information, since when one of these guys dies the newspapers see fit to run articles on the event. I understand that we disagree on this, but there are other areas of Wikipedia to focus on rather than this popular and well-maintained page. EnjoysButter 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very interesting, relevant and encyclopedic article for baseball fans. Canjth 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful research tool. Very interesting. Encyclopedic. Alex 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very well-researched list, and rather informative for baseball fans and historians. Granted, it borders on cruft, but I think it's a keeper.--Fightingirish 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It takes a lot of work to compile this information and is valuable for keep a connection with the lost art of old-time baseball. These people deserve recognition and this article gives them that. If the oldest living former baseball players were famous, this wouldn't even be a debate. Dipietro 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for this information and was pleased to find it here. Equally amazed that someone thinks it should be deleted.Kinston eagle 20:37, 26 July 2007 (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.