Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHL Hometown Heroes

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DHL Hometown Heroes

A Minor promotional award that Major League Baseball did back in 2006, fewer than 60 direct google hits, most of it are wikipedia mirrors and promotional material from MLB.com themselves. Fails reliable sourcing and notabilty guidelines Delete Secret ^account 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks useful to me. It's an award for the best players ever to play baseball. There should be no question about reliable sourcing; the most reliable source about Major League Baseball likely is the official site of Major League Baseball. As for notability, they had nearly 17 million votes cast for these awards, and there was an hour of television coverage on ESPN, as well as a lot of print coverage and online coverage. When I google "MLB Hometown Heroes" I get 125 results, only a handful from mlb.com, and the majority from independent bloggers, sports sites, and newspapers, particularly in Chicago where there was apparently some controversy over the exclusion of Sammy Sosa (example). Beyond that, the nature of the the list itself, including only the most historically important player from each franchise, makes it a useful introduction to baseball history. Keep Acerimusdux (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the articles and television special, this poll also spawned a book [1]. I feel as though it is notable. I'm not sure how much press is still available on the internet on this subject, but we are not bound just by internet sources and this received considerable press at the time of the poll. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This Google news search: [2] came up with over 140 hits. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kinston. Joe 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston. Hogvillian (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is subject of reliable sources, as Kinston points out. Wizardman 18:20, 19 January 2009 (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.