Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 50 Major League Baseball hit by pitch leaders

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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 50 Major League Baseball hit by pitch leaders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What does it mean to be among the top 50 in all-time HBP's? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthwhile reference. I don't understand the anti-list mentality of the originator of this AfD. Alex (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have promoted six lists to FL status and I have active FLC nominations. To say that I am "anti-list" is a touch simplistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Spanneraol (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer the nominator's question, it means that the players on the list are the 50 players who have sccumulated the greatest career totals in that particular statistical category. The list does not, as he asserts, violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in that it's neither "long" nor "sprawling", and in my opinion "contain(s) sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". -208.81.148.195 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list sprawls and provides no context on what it means to be on this list. That makes it indiscriminate. Explanatory text is lacking, and frankly, I don't think there is any significance to being on this list, which makes it unencyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe that the current explanatory text is lacking, the solution to that is to write better explanatory text, not to delete the list. Per WP:DELETE: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I'm not sure why you would consider MLB's leaders in HBPs to be less "significant" than MLB's leaders in any other major statistical category. Or do you think that lists of the leaders in other traditional MLB counting statistics are also insignificant (and if so, which? all of them?)? Also, you're going to need to provide some kind of evidence that the page "sprawls", rather than merely asserting that it does (as you did here) if you want people to be persuaded by your reasoning. Where you see a sprawling page, I see one with well-defined inclusion criteria, whose members are listed in a reasonable and intuitive order and neatly formatted in a table. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with this, but I can't agree that this is indiscriminate or that it should be deleted. This is a valid baseball statistical category, like home runs or doubles. It is less significant than those, but that doesn't make it not significant, nor indiscriminate. And some of these players, like Hunt and Baylor that I can recall, were particularly known for their ability to get on base by getting hit by pitches. So the question is more what to do with it - keep it as a standalone article or merge it to the hit by pitch article? should it be top 50, or top 10, 20 or 100? Rlendog (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list deals with a legitimate statistic of the game. I believe the list has sufficient notability. Stormbay (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge top 25 batters to hit by pitch. Rlendog is correct that some of these people were famous by their ability getting hit by a pitch, like Ron Hunt but I don't see the need of this list as it's not a defining figure for most of these players though I don't see a reason to delete also. Secret ^account 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earlier keep arguments have failed to provide multiple sources that satisfy WP:LISTN to show that references consider this grouping notable. WP:ILIKEIT arguments are not persuasive. While hit by pitch is a an acceptable article, sources are needed to demonstrate that a list of players hit by a pitch is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hit by pitch. The latter article's not particularly long. Now what do we do with the other side of the coin: List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (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.