Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Cubs all-time roster

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. W.marsh 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Cubs all-time roster

This article is just a direct, long copy of Category:Chicago Cubs players with no real new information (other than playing time, which the articles all contain). Seems to serve little purpose to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This could probably fall under WP:CSD#A3. It's a huge link-farm with no content, and serves no purpose that the category can't provide. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete redundant ff m 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. —Fabrictramp 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, if this roster is up for deletion, the other 26 existing MLB rosters should also be up for deletion, as they contain essentially the same info. Second, I strongly suggest people read Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes before commenting on this discussion.--Fabrictramp 13:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is just like other list articles as well as the other all-time baseball roster articles. It includes years played and positions which the category cannot. It also includes red-link players which the category cannot. If anything, this should stay and the category should go. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, speedy delete does not apply, because this list has the years and positions played, which keeps it from being a list consisting solely of links. Expanding a bit on what Wknight94 said, if you look at the example list given in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, you'll see that virtually nothing in that list is included that isn't in either a category or the individual articles. While I normally avoid making the argument "hey, this other article is this way" in an AfD discussion, I'm going to assume that because the list is used as a prominent example in an editing guideline that it is okay. So what is different?

The editors who have argued for deletion have discounted the value of the years and positions played, but to anyone remotely interested in baseball (which is the type of person who will look at this page), this is important information. Consensus was reached over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball several months ago that these, along with Hall of Fame membership, which still needs to be added to this list, were important things that would makes these rosters valuable information that did not duplicate the category. (As an aside, I was preparing to revisit that discussion over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball because some editors would also like to add flag icons indicating each player's country of origin.)

For those who are still arguing that everything in this roster is either in the category or the individual articles (which ignores the value of the redlinked entries), I quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, talking about categories vs. lists: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other." --Fabrictramp 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For all the reasons mentioned above. Spanneraol 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided about the existence of these lists, but I don't like the linking of them on the individual pages of ever player who appears on the list. It's particularly jarring with franchises that have moved, in that the player in question is linked with a city/team for which he never played. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with your frustration there. The See also sections of baseball players have gone out of control. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One suggestion would be to take out the links to the all-time rosters on the individual player pages, but leave in the team categories. On the category pages, have a link to the all-time rosters. That would clean up the player page, but still allow readers easy access to the all-time roster if they are interested. --Fabrictramp 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's a reasonable suggestion. For better or worse, franchises in baseball keep the records and the association with their former homes. (Full disclosure: I'm a SF Giants fan and we are proud to claim players for the NY Giants as part of our history.) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not even sure it is necessary. If I want to look at the Cardinals' all-time roster, I'm not going to the Jason Isringhausen page. I'm going to St. Louis Cardinals. No link is necessary from individual players to the all-time rosters IMHO. And frankly, I think the team player categories should be deleted. They create as much category clutter as the old All-Star Game categories (before they were mercifully deleted). The rosters provide more information and are more complete. (Although the cool new image-searching tool works off categories so that would be unfortunate). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to like categories more than most people, but at a minimum, I think categories are useful for players who played for defunct franchises. There's no all-time roster for the Detroit Wolverines, for example (at least not yet), so Category:Detroit Wolverines players has value. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True but I'd prefer it were replaced by an all-time roster when someone gets to creating one. I don't know if removing the categories entirely has been discussed before. I may be alone in that thinking. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not alone. The categories don't seem to serve the purpose in this case. Let me know if you decide to tilt at that windmill. BPMullins | Talk 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The overlap between category and list is incomplete, as many of the lists include red links and the separate categories exist in cases where the teams have moved or changed names (for instance, see Category:New York Highlanders players and Category:New York Yankees players. Caknuck 15:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First of all, the Chicago Cubs all-time roster is not "a direct, long copy of Category:Chicago Cubs players", as said at the top of this post. By the other side, this list serves as a complementary information source on the team's history and also serves as a complement to the List of MLB players, which, like the baseball categories, is destined exclusively for players with wiki articles. About the lists, an existing red link can indicate that a new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. Please see *. I also believe that a red link is a way to encourage any individual or member of the wiki community to cooperate in the WikiProject_Baseball. Thanks. MusiCitizen 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I agree with MusiCitizen, the list with its "Red Links" may encourage others to contribute articles on those players, something a category can not do. I have to admit though, I think that this "List" lacks subtance. I believe that some minor information should be added after the players name and years played. What I mean is, the position of the player should be included and the players highlight. But, that my humble opinion. Tony the Marine 23:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Position is already there. But your point is taken - the list definitely needs some formatting help. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per MusiCitizen. Patken4 01:00, 16 October 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.