- 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. I'm deciding to come down on Keep not only because more editors are advocating this position but those editors preferring Delete didn't offer a persuasive rationale for why this article should be deleted other than their own opinions that it was "not important" or "insignificant". And hearing that there are 39 players pages which redirect to this one article was the final element that clinched this for me. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No secondary sources provided proving this is a notable topic in the annals of baseball. Dronebogus ( talk) 01:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Completely insignificant and trivial list. Frank Anchor 02:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Good idea, but we really only need a list of the players, not this long-winded article. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. Shellwood ( talk) 10:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is sourced and fits in with the other lists of baseball players. This article was created when all the individual articles for these players were deleted. This was the compromise. It is not "indiscriminate" cause there is a very clear criteria for this list. Spanneraol ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning keep or move to project space. There is an increasing propensity for old sources to be digitized and made accessible, which suggests that in time it may become possible to fully identify some of those listed here. However, without the list to work from, those connections will not be made. BD2412 T 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Spanneraol. This is an unusual situation and as Spanneraol says, was based on a consensus compromise when addressing articles on certain of these players. It is perhaps IAR, but certainly not LISTCRUFT or INDISCRIMINATE. Rlendog ( talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This topic is not important. If the players are important, we would know their names. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and maintain status quo. There used to be separate articles on each of these players. Indeed, the article on Lewis was a Featured Article. See
here. As Spanneraol notes, some objected to these being stand-alone articles, and the compromise was to combine them in this list article. The compromise was reasonable then, and if it is revoked, then I would fully expect this to go full circle with some arguing that the prior stand-alone articles should be restored.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Being featured is not a reason unto itself.
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
unto itself
Sweet use of an archaic phrase. I'll give you that ... except nobody said it was a reason "unto itself". Cbl62 ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)- I didn’t know “unto itself” was an archaic phrase. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Being featured is not a reason unto itself.
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral to be honest with you I see both parties' points. I see that the list clearly needs more indicators of notability (ie more references which specifically list notability or say why ball players without a given name should be notable) but I also see that this list came from a bunch of non-notable ball players that would probably never get notability. I believe this list was a compromise between keeping every player but moving them to a list. If more refs could be provided which list why it's notable consider me a keep, but for now I'm neutral.
Therapyisgood (
talk) 18:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- There doesn’t have to be a list of non notable people in a non-notable category that has no obvious inherent notability (these people obviously weren’t the best or most at anything if they’re nearly forgotten). Dronebogus ( talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep there is absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this list. There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. This community is far too tolerant of misleading AFD nom rationales. At any rate, there is no good reason to delete this list.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- It’s indiscriminate because it’s
Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY of no clear importance, not because it’s unspecific. The fact that you’re accusing nobody in particular of being “too tolerant” of good faith arguments seems like you’re trying to disqualify it on
Wikipedia:LAWYER grounds
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- NOTDIRECTORY is a completely different argument from INDISCRIMINATE. Seems kind of ironic for you to move the goalposts like that and then accuse me of wikilawyering. Also,
misleading AFD nom rationales
andgood faith arguments
are not the same thing. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)- “Misleading” is not inherently malicious; a mistake can be good faith. You seem to be suggesting a misleading rationale should be considered an actionable offense.
Dronebogus (
talk) 08:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a mistake can be good faith. But if you recheck my initial comment, you'll see that I never opined on whether or not you were acting in good faith. You put those words in my mouth. I also never said anything about it being actionable. You also put those words in my mouth. Whether or not you were acting in good faith, I am tired of seeing articles brought to AfD on the basis of policies that do not apply.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable then, I suppose I misinterpreted you, but your point about the community’s “tolerance” of AFDs you object to also wasn’t very clear to begin with.
Dronebogus (
talk) 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- True, I certainly could have been clearer. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 23:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable then, I suppose I misinterpreted you, but your point about the community’s “tolerance” of AFDs you object to also wasn’t very clear to begin with.
Dronebogus (
talk) 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a mistake can be good faith. But if you recheck my initial comment, you'll see that I never opined on whether or not you were acting in good faith. You put those words in my mouth. I also never said anything about it being actionable. You also put those words in my mouth. Whether or not you were acting in good faith, I am tired of seeing articles brought to AfD on the basis of policies that do not apply.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Misleading” is not inherently malicious; a mistake can be good faith. You seem to be suggesting a misleading rationale should be considered an actionable offense.
Dronebogus (
talk) 08:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- NOTDIRECTORY is a completely different argument from INDISCRIMINATE. Seems kind of ironic for you to move the goalposts like that and then accuse me of wikilawyering. Also,
- It’s indiscriminate because it’s
Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY of no clear importance, not because it’s unspecific. The fact that you’re accusing nobody in particular of being “too tolerant” of good faith arguments seems like you’re trying to disqualify it on
Wikipedia:LAWYER grounds
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or move to project space. A list should have a clear criteria, but the criteria should be something that people might actually want to see collected in one place. A mention of them on their team's page, plus a brief aside about their given name not being identified, seems like it collects the information in a much more useful place for readers.
Rusalkii (
talk) 22:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really viable. The last player on this list (Leonard) played for the St Louis Cardinals, a club for which (as far as I can see) more than 2000 players have played down the years. To single Leonard out for mention in the team article solely because his forename is not known would seem to be a massive UNDUE violation..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- There shouldn’t be a mention at all. This list is all about digging up meaningless trivia and putting it in a wildly WP:UNDUE framework even though, as mentioned, nobody cared enough about these players to even keep track of their first names. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really viable. The last player on this list (Leonard) played for the St Louis Cardinals, a club for which (as far as I can see) more than 2000 players have played down the years. To single Leonard out for mention in the team article solely because his forename is not known would seem to be a massive UNDUE violation..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator's rationale is severely flawed. The second footnote, a SABR report from 2007, does contain discussion about several of the players listed (although I couldn't blame anyone for missing that because it was unreasonably hard to access). Additionally, the effort SABR members and other baseball historians have put in to finding first names and biographical information about these players, which has paid off in some cases (such as that of
Patrick Larkins, a former member of the list in question), should put to rest the idea that this information is too trivial to appear on Wikipedia. Ideally the sourcing would be better than it is now, but
WP:Deletion is not cleanup.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, just in case anyone objects that SABR is just one source, I should probably note that official MLB historian
John Thorn has devoted two posts on his blog to a player formerly known only as Stine/Stein:
here and
here. I guess the case to keep isn't as airtight as it would be if someone found writing that covers all or most of the players without first names, but I still firmly believe that deleting this list would not make the encyclopedia better.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- The use of an actual academic source is good. Dronebogus ( talk) 07:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, just in case anyone objects that SABR is just one source, I should probably note that official MLB historian
John Thorn has devoted two posts on his blog to a player formerly known only as Stine/Stein:
here and
here. I guess the case to keep isn't as airtight as it would be if someone found writing that covers all or most of the players without first names, but I still firmly believe that deleting this list would not make the encyclopedia better.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are comments to this discussion as recently as today. As you all know, a closer can close this discussion if they perceive a rought consensus to exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete - The sources in the article seem to fail to meet WP:LISTN. One of the sources in the lead doesn't even seem to mention Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names within its text. Otherwise, it's just an indiscriminate list that, if reduced to blue links, really doesn't even need to exist. CPORfan ( talk) 14:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)(
Blocked
sockpuppet of
BFDIFan707, see
investigation)- Keep There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. Meets WP:NLIST Lightburst ( talk) 00:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. As I understand it, every Major League Baseball player whose given name is known is currently considered notable enough to have an article of his own. This list was created to compile the list of all the others for whom not even a given name is known; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) where this issue was addressed not only for "_____ Smith" but many of his counterparts. See the guideline at WP:CSC which supports the use of lists where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles ...." -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep--the book The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball discusses this issue (for example noting on page 60 that "McGuire" is the unprenomened player with that latest appearance), thus establishing that the phenomenon has been noted before and is not an original synthesis (and for this reason I think the "long-winded" part an editor above objects to is, in fact, useful--indeed, I think that section should be expanded and better sourced to demonstrate why this is an issue for researchers). blameless 01:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Many good arguments for keeping the article have been made based purely on the notability of the page's content and the appropriateness of the topic for a list; I think it bears mentioning that there is also a good deal of historical precedent militating towards the utility of this article. Two deletion discussions have reached consensus to merge articles into this list: Jones (third baseman) (2021) and Smith (baseball) (2014). Additionally, a very large number of articles were turned into redirects without an AfD being run. Currently, there are a whopping 39 baseball players whose pages redirect here (including Jones and Smith): Maury Pierce, Shaffer (baseball), Edwards (baseball), Boland (baseball), Hellings (baseball), Quinn (baseball), Sheridan (baseball), Stoddard (baseball), Sweigert, Ham Sweigert, Hampton Sweigert, McCloskey (baseball), Spencer (baseball), O'Rourke (baseball), Higby (baseball), Gavern (baseball), Wood (baseball), Quinlan (baseball), Murphy (baseball), Scott (baseball), Wills (baseball), Jones (left fielder), Jones (outfielder), McRemer (baseball), Franklin (baseball), Sweigert (baseball), Macey (baseball), McBride (baseball), Stafford (baseball), Sterling (baseball), Sullivan (baseball), Booth (baseball), Evans (baseball), Leonard (baseball), McDoolan (baseball), and McGuire (baseball). The basis on which consensus exists for this gigantic undertaking is that the information has been moved to a list that includes all of the information from the respective articles; it does not exist to delete the information altogether. With this in mind, it is not clear what could possibly have changed in the months since the very well-attended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman) closed with everyone agreeing that the contents should exist on Wikipedia as part of this list. jp× g 09:12, 13 December 2022 (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.
- 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. I'm deciding to come down on Keep not only because more editors are advocating this position but those editors preferring Delete didn't offer a persuasive rationale for why this article should be deleted other than their own opinions that it was "not important" or "insignificant". And hearing that there are 39 players pages which redirect to this one article was the final element that clinched this for me. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No secondary sources provided proving this is a notable topic in the annals of baseball. Dronebogus ( talk) 01:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Completely insignificant and trivial list. Frank Anchor 02:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Good idea, but we really only need a list of the players, not this long-winded article. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. Shellwood ( talk) 10:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is sourced and fits in with the other lists of baseball players. This article was created when all the individual articles for these players were deleted. This was the compromise. It is not "indiscriminate" cause there is a very clear criteria for this list. Spanneraol ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning keep or move to project space. There is an increasing propensity for old sources to be digitized and made accessible, which suggests that in time it may become possible to fully identify some of those listed here. However, without the list to work from, those connections will not be made. BD2412 T 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Spanneraol. This is an unusual situation and as Spanneraol says, was based on a consensus compromise when addressing articles on certain of these players. It is perhaps IAR, but certainly not LISTCRUFT or INDISCRIMINATE. Rlendog ( talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This topic is not important. If the players are important, we would know their names. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and maintain status quo. There used to be separate articles on each of these players. Indeed, the article on Lewis was a Featured Article. See
here. As Spanneraol notes, some objected to these being stand-alone articles, and the compromise was to combine them in this list article. The compromise was reasonable then, and if it is revoked, then I would fully expect this to go full circle with some arguing that the prior stand-alone articles should be restored.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Being featured is not a reason unto itself.
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
unto itself
Sweet use of an archaic phrase. I'll give you that ... except nobody said it was a reason "unto itself". Cbl62 ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)- I didn’t know “unto itself” was an archaic phrase. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Being featured is not a reason unto itself.
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral to be honest with you I see both parties' points. I see that the list clearly needs more indicators of notability (ie more references which specifically list notability or say why ball players without a given name should be notable) but I also see that this list came from a bunch of non-notable ball players that would probably never get notability. I believe this list was a compromise between keeping every player but moving them to a list. If more refs could be provided which list why it's notable consider me a keep, but for now I'm neutral.
Therapyisgood (
talk) 18:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- There doesn’t have to be a list of non notable people in a non-notable category that has no obvious inherent notability (these people obviously weren’t the best or most at anything if they’re nearly forgotten). Dronebogus ( talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep there is absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this list. There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. This community is far too tolerant of misleading AFD nom rationales. At any rate, there is no good reason to delete this list.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- It’s indiscriminate because it’s
Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY of no clear importance, not because it’s unspecific. The fact that you’re accusing nobody in particular of being “too tolerant” of good faith arguments seems like you’re trying to disqualify it on
Wikipedia:LAWYER grounds
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- NOTDIRECTORY is a completely different argument from INDISCRIMINATE. Seems kind of ironic for you to move the goalposts like that and then accuse me of wikilawyering. Also,
misleading AFD nom rationales
andgood faith arguments
are not the same thing. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)- “Misleading” is not inherently malicious; a mistake can be good faith. You seem to be suggesting a misleading rationale should be considered an actionable offense.
Dronebogus (
talk) 08:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a mistake can be good faith. But if you recheck my initial comment, you'll see that I never opined on whether or not you were acting in good faith. You put those words in my mouth. I also never said anything about it being actionable. You also put those words in my mouth. Whether or not you were acting in good faith, I am tired of seeing articles brought to AfD on the basis of policies that do not apply.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable then, I suppose I misinterpreted you, but your point about the community’s “tolerance” of AFDs you object to also wasn’t very clear to begin with.
Dronebogus (
talk) 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- True, I certainly could have been clearer. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 23:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable then, I suppose I misinterpreted you, but your point about the community’s “tolerance” of AFDs you object to also wasn’t very clear to begin with.
Dronebogus (
talk) 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a mistake can be good faith. But if you recheck my initial comment, you'll see that I never opined on whether or not you were acting in good faith. You put those words in my mouth. I also never said anything about it being actionable. You also put those words in my mouth. Whether or not you were acting in good faith, I am tired of seeing articles brought to AfD on the basis of policies that do not apply.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- “Misleading” is not inherently malicious; a mistake can be good faith. You seem to be suggesting a misleading rationale should be considered an actionable offense.
Dronebogus (
talk) 08:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- NOTDIRECTORY is a completely different argument from INDISCRIMINATE. Seems kind of ironic for you to move the goalposts like that and then accuse me of wikilawyering. Also,
- It’s indiscriminate because it’s
Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY of no clear importance, not because it’s unspecific. The fact that you’re accusing nobody in particular of being “too tolerant” of good faith arguments seems like you’re trying to disqualify it on
Wikipedia:LAWYER grounds
Dronebogus (
talk) 07:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or move to project space. A list should have a clear criteria, but the criteria should be something that people might actually want to see collected in one place. A mention of them on their team's page, plus a brief aside about their given name not being identified, seems like it collects the information in a much more useful place for readers.
Rusalkii (
talk) 22:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really viable. The last player on this list (Leonard) played for the St Louis Cardinals, a club for which (as far as I can see) more than 2000 players have played down the years. To single Leonard out for mention in the team article solely because his forename is not known would seem to be a massive UNDUE violation..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- There shouldn’t be a mention at all. This list is all about digging up meaningless trivia and putting it in a wildly WP:UNDUE framework even though, as mentioned, nobody cared enough about these players to even keep track of their first names. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really viable. The last player on this list (Leonard) played for the St Louis Cardinals, a club for which (as far as I can see) more than 2000 players have played down the years. To single Leonard out for mention in the team article solely because his forename is not known would seem to be a massive UNDUE violation..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator's rationale is severely flawed. The second footnote, a SABR report from 2007, does contain discussion about several of the players listed (although I couldn't blame anyone for missing that because it was unreasonably hard to access). Additionally, the effort SABR members and other baseball historians have put in to finding first names and biographical information about these players, which has paid off in some cases (such as that of
Patrick Larkins, a former member of the list in question), should put to rest the idea that this information is too trivial to appear on Wikipedia. Ideally the sourcing would be better than it is now, but
WP:Deletion is not cleanup.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, just in case anyone objects that SABR is just one source, I should probably note that official MLB historian
John Thorn has devoted two posts on his blog to a player formerly known only as Stine/Stein:
here and
here. I guess the case to keep isn't as airtight as it would be if someone found writing that covers all or most of the players without first names, but I still firmly believe that deleting this list would not make the encyclopedia better.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- The use of an actual academic source is good. Dronebogus ( talk) 07:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, just in case anyone objects that SABR is just one source, I should probably note that official MLB historian
John Thorn has devoted two posts on his blog to a player formerly known only as Stine/Stein:
here and
here. I guess the case to keep isn't as airtight as it would be if someone found writing that covers all or most of the players without first names, but I still firmly believe that deleting this list would not make the encyclopedia better.
Hatman31 (
talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are comments to this discussion as recently as today. As you all know, a closer can close this discussion if they perceive a rought consensus to exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete - The sources in the article seem to fail to meet WP:LISTN. One of the sources in the lead doesn't even seem to mention Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names within its text. Otherwise, it's just an indiscriminate list that, if reduced to blue links, really doesn't even need to exist. CPORfan ( talk) 14:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)( Blocked
sockpuppet of
BFDIFan707, see
investigation)- Keep There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. Meets WP:NLIST Lightburst ( talk) 00:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. As I understand it, every Major League Baseball player whose given name is known is currently considered notable enough to have an article of his own. This list was created to compile the list of all the others for whom not even a given name is known; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) where this issue was addressed not only for "_____ Smith" but many of his counterparts. See the guideline at WP:CSC which supports the use of lists where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles ...." -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep--the book The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball discusses this issue (for example noting on page 60 that "McGuire" is the unprenomened player with that latest appearance), thus establishing that the phenomenon has been noted before and is not an original synthesis (and for this reason I think the "long-winded" part an editor above objects to is, in fact, useful--indeed, I think that section should be expanded and better sourced to demonstrate why this is an issue for researchers). blameless 01:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Many good arguments for keeping the article have been made based purely on the notability of the page's content and the appropriateness of the topic for a list; I think it bears mentioning that there is also a good deal of historical precedent militating towards the utility of this article. Two deletion discussions have reached consensus to merge articles into this list: Jones (third baseman) (2021) and Smith (baseball) (2014). Additionally, a very large number of articles were turned into redirects without an AfD being run. Currently, there are a whopping 39 baseball players whose pages redirect here (including Jones and Smith): Maury Pierce, Shaffer (baseball), Edwards (baseball), Boland (baseball), Hellings (baseball), Quinn (baseball), Sheridan (baseball), Stoddard (baseball), Sweigert, Ham Sweigert, Hampton Sweigert, McCloskey (baseball), Spencer (baseball), O'Rourke (baseball), Higby (baseball), Gavern (baseball), Wood (baseball), Quinlan (baseball), Murphy (baseball), Scott (baseball), Wills (baseball), Jones (left fielder), Jones (outfielder), McRemer (baseball), Franklin (baseball), Sweigert (baseball), Macey (baseball), McBride (baseball), Stafford (baseball), Sterling (baseball), Sullivan (baseball), Booth (baseball), Evans (baseball), Leonard (baseball), McDoolan (baseball), and McGuire (baseball). The basis on which consensus exists for this gigantic undertaking is that the information has been moved to a list that includes all of the information from the respective articles; it does not exist to delete the information altogether. With this in mind, it is not clear what could possibly have changed in the months since the very well-attended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman) closed with everyone agreeing that the contents should exist on Wikipedia as part of this list. jp× g 09:12, 13 December 2022 (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.