Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MLB seasons

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:32Z

[edit] List of MLB seasons

List of MLB seasons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article contains a list of uncreated links and what links do exist, they point to "X in baseball". For example, 2005 MLB season redirects to 2005 in baseball. I have no problem with this list of MLB seasons but it is not being used and a list of years in baseball should be used instead to complete the already-exists "X in baseball." In addition if this succeeds, {{MLB seasons}} should be deleted as well. Cburnett 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to the template. MER-C 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Redundancy is not a bad thing, but there's a third template, {{Year in baseball}}. Hmm, I think there's something going on here, but I'm not sure what. Mister.Manticore 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Checked up a little, only one editor, I'll send him a note, see if there was something going on. Mister.Manticore 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have very little problem with the article but if most of the links don't exist and the rest are redirects then I'd call that a bad form of redundancy. If he wants to make something of it then I'll withdraw my deletion nomination but given the large time delay (List of MLB seasons was created 2 1/2 months ago...) the editor forgot, moved on, or no longer really cares. Cburnett 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article itself is not objectionable. It's a list of seasons in a major-league sport. It's a no-brainer that well-done it would be kept. The thing is, this isn't well-done, and it's more or less abandoned. If WikiProject Baseball was working on it, that'd be something, but as far as I can tell they're not. They have this Category:Years in baseball instead. Mister.Manticore 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely why I nominated it. :) Cburnett 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete without prejudice. There are many such lists, ie List of NHL seasons, List of NLL seasons, List of WHL seasons, so this list itself belongs, however it is an abandond repository of red links. If anyone wishes to start writing articles for each MLB season, then it can, and should, be recreated then. Resolute 20:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- I started making the MLB season articles, but then people started to redirect it to the YEARS in Baseball articles, which I dont understand. If theres 2005 NFL season why cant their be 2005 MLB season?--Coasttocoast 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Coasttocoast's comments. I agree that they should not have been redirected. I would suggest cancelling those redirects and reverting back to the previous versions. Resolute 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• WITHDRAW NOMINATION for now provided something happens. Coasttocoast, you're welcome to leave me a message if someone changes your work to redirects again. Cburnett 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Should be done other sports. Hockey uses categories for years of the sport and articles for league seasons: Category:2004 in ice hockey. Same for basketball Category:2000 in basketball. Basketball also seems to have an article for the sport year. There needs to be discussion about proper convention. TonyTheTiger 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have restored the four season articles back to their original status. The person who changed these to redirects really should have discussed it before making such a drastic change, especially given how obvious the differences between 2005 MLB season and 2005 in baseball are. Resolute 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I'm the person that redirected those articles. First, why didn't someone simply ask me why I did that rather than announce here that I was wrong while my back was turned. Second, I hardly consider a single redirect edit a drastic change. The original author noticed the redirect and also did nothing to try to contact me. I included a perfectly nice edit summary with the redirect edit which, to me, invited an explanation as to why the articles were created. Third, the content split was not done well. It resulted in huge amounts of duplicated content between 2005 in baseball and 2005 MLB season. I could understand if the split was in progress but it had been in place for months and still contained a huge overlap, both in actual content and in concept. That's why I figured it was just a poor attempt at a split and had been abandoned by Coasttocoast who hadn't edited 2005 MLB season in over a month at that point. Another six weeks post-redirect with no complaints or communication solidified my hunch that the issue was dead. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there was any intention of back stabbing here, just a lot of misunderstanding all the way around but I think it's worked out, yes? If coasttocoast will continue with this article then so be it. If not then it should be deleted without prejudice. Cburnett 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Apologies... I didn't quite mean my coments the way they evidently came out. Resolute 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • (I'll keep comments here - I found this page after I left a message at User talk:Resolute) I can't agree with a few things left on my talk page. As far as discussing before redirecting, when I see something broken that hasn't been touched in over a month, I generally figure that it's fallen off everyone's radar so I fix it first and wait for someone else to initiate discussion. (I'm still a little surprised that no one did that.) Next, I very much disagree that the 2005 articles are properly split. I estimate that 90% or more of 2005 in baseball#Events and 2005 in baseball#Deaths pertain to MLB as well as 100% of 2005 in baseball#Awards and honors. Last - and this is supported by the previous point - I'm not sure splitting the articles was even necessary to begin with. That's another reason I simply redirected - it was essentially a merge. Removing all of the MLB info from 2005 in baseball would leave very little - almost a stub. If you want to do a split, it might be better to break out the large sections: 2005 baseball calendar, 2005 deaths in baseball... Sorry, but I'm not on board with this discussion so far. But I'm listening! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • My biggest problem with the x in baseball series as it is presently constituted is that it assumes that baseball = MLB. Clearly that is not the case when there are dozens of minor leagues in North America, the Japanese leagues, etc. I would suggest that there is more than enough to separate each MLB season out of the x in baseball series, then expand the latter to include all other levels. 2005 in baseball does attempt to do this somewhat, but you are correct that it is imperfectly done. Regardless, I think it may be better to move this discussion to one of the related article's talk page, as this is the wrong forum, and this AfD will be closed at any time given the nomination was withdrawn. Resolute 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's fine. Unfortunately there's four articles in question plus this list article. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, I'll just start a section at Talk:List of MLB seasons. That should be centralized enough. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2006 (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.