Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball teams by population

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. I'd love it if there's a policy that enforces that any and each comment by an iVoter in an AfD should necessarily be supported by a link to a policy/guideline/relevant deletion discussion archive. I find many of the comments philosophical (Chris, for example, writes "population has nothing to do with baseball" so delete; but later, refines it with a reference to Synthesis). Considering the improvement in the article post nomination, and considering that established editors like Secret, Blanchard and others have given their views pertinently, there is no consensus for delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball teams by population

List of Major League Baseball teams by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is list cruft. It's also original research, what with the non-MLB cities included. Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Population has nothing to do with baseball.—Chris!c/t 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete City population indeed has nothing to do whatsoever with a baseball team. Article is entirely original research and includes population statistics for cities that do not have a team. None of the sources even specifically mention baseball. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this important? Or notable for that matter? (And why not use metro areas?) Matchups 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote due to changes in article. 01:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think I even understand this list. Why is Edmonton, AB on it? Weird. Wknight94 talk 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Abstain per Brian Halvorsen's changes. Wknight94 talk 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cities that geographically and demographically qualify for a hypothetical Major League Baseball team are also included for comparison purposes. Who has decided that Quebec City should be included and not Montreal? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep. Concerns have been addressed by a complete rewrite of the article. I suggest expanding to include all metro areas that ever had teams in any league considered major, that is, any league listed under America-Major or America-Defunct-Major on this template. And yes, I'd include Altoona. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not clear why this information is significant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am withdrawing my recommendation because the article has changed since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I am confused about the article as well, I do have to say, market size is something in baseball that receives quite a bit of coverage. Being from Portland, Oregon, I can tell you how I always hear that we're a bigger metro area than other towns that have teams, so I can kind of see where the editor was going with this. But that being said, this article isn't about market size. Including towns that don't house major league franchises makes the list very confusing and the article offers very little encyclopedic value. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content analyzing baseball teams and market size might be interesting - and may already exist somewhere. But this list thing is not the way to go. Wknight94 talk 12:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's definitely been done, ad nauseum. However, when it is done, it is typically done using the much more indicative metropolitan area than just by the size of the city itself. -Dewelar (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think that's the (most) odd part about the list. The metropolitan areas of the teams are the reason for having the teams in that market. Here's an interesting list that is more clear, thorough, and incorporates metro areas. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, populations don't have anything to do with baseball, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Populations don't have anything to do with any sport as a matter of fact. – Michael (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course they do. They're not putting a professional sports franchise in Birkenfeld, Oregon any time soon because it would never draw a crowd. That's not the argument we should be making. The argument should be that there are better ways of covering population of the towns that house major league franchises. I personally think it's better to just cover it in the team's article rather than list form. We should cover how the population of the metro area (not the city alone) factored into the franchise being created in that area. And last but not least, leave out areas that don't house major league franchises, unless they did at one time. --Brian Halvorsen (talk)
  • Delete Entirely WP:OR. Even if it wasn't, size of city means little. Size of metro area -- or perhaps size of broadcast area -- might be a better method, and certainly a method for which sources would be much more readily available. Simply sourcing the city size provides nothing encyclopedic. -Dewelar (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Abstain pending a potential relisting. -Dewelar (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Metro populations, not city political borders, determine team locations. And including non-baseball cities is WP:OR at its worst.oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Holy crow, that's the best turn around for an article I've ever seen! oknazevad (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I re-created the list, removing the non-MLB cities and added metro areas, MLB population ranks and U.S. ranks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Halvorsen brian changes, now it shows a link between baseball and population, books like the Bill James Baseball Alamac describes the change between population and metro areas, it's not WP:OR and most of the delete voters doesn't give any policy based reasoning. It can easily be a WP:FL or even an WP:FA if you write about the changing demographics on baseball. Secret account 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per self changes. Agreed with Secret, the connection between baseball and population is now clear. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after noticing the changes. I think that Halvorsen brian did an amazing job in making my list more encyclopedic. It looks better than ever now and the look of the article is more professional now. GVnayR (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I'm not changing my vote (there's still no context for the list, and I'm not sure what pages would link to it besides), I'd suggest that it might be best to withdraw the nomination given the wholesale change in the article's focus. As it stands, people who have already !voted may not have revisited it since voting, and should have the opportunity to view it afresh. -Dewelar (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still don't see the point of the article - it just rehashes the US metro table with only the cities for baseball teams (and throws in Toronto) - the original creator clearly doesn't get the point - he just added a section on player demographics, which obviously has nothing to do with the article (and I just removed). Maybe if it could be expanded further, based on how MLB defines is teams' markets (via TV/radio markets) - since team primary fan bases in almost all cases go well beyond their metro area - although that may be heading into WP:OR, depending on what info is out there. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not changing my vote even after the rewrite. Right now this list is still an intersection of two essentially unrelated features. This violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Also there is no need for this article to exist. If one is interested, they can just go to the MLB city articles to look up the population. To say this can easily become a WP:FL is an overstatement.—Chris!c/t 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SYN is about combining sources to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The list in no way does that. It is a fact that the Phoenix metropolitan area houses the Diamondbacks and it is also a fact that the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of the said metro area is 4,364,094. The two are connected because market size is essential to where Major League Baseball teams are located. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the population and the team's locations are sourced individually. And then the list uses the sources to imply there is a connection between the two essentially unrelated features. To indicate this connection exists, you need a source that explicitly shows this. Please explain how that doesn't violate WP:SYN.—Chris!c/t 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what it states. Combining sources in not a violation. If I have a source saying the Washington Senators play in Washington, D.C. and another saying the metro population of Washington is 5,476,241 than I can conclude that the Washington Nationals play in a Washington, D.C. which has a metro population of 5,476,241. But if I had a source saying that the Cubs and White Sox play in Chicago and another that states there is a high rate of crime in the area, I can't state that "Since there is a high crime rate in Chicago, some of it takes place at Cubs and White Sox games." Although probably fact, it is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" per WP:SYN. The case we have now is a source that locates teams to their home town and another source that states the population of those towns. All of it is stated in the sources, none of of it is an "advance [of] a new position". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but that's the catch. If you're implying a connection, then it violates WP:SYN unless there's a source that describes the connection. If you're not implying a connection, then why is it notable? -Dewelar (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is baseball-almanac a reliable source? It certainly doesn't look reliable to me. As of now my vote still stands unless I can be convinced that such connection exists and it is covered by independent secondary sources.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't convince myself that this is useful. But since most of my concerns are addressed. Thus, I am switching to abstain.—Chris!c/t 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That pretty much echoes my feeling. -Dewelar (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to request that the deletion discussion either be re-listed or kept open for longer than usual since the product is different and the vast majority of concerns by users has been addressed. We have identified Baseball Almanac as a reliable source, debunked the WP:SYNTHESIS concern, connected population to teams (if that is not clear, the population of the are defines the market size), and removed all original research. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be kept open longer. I still think delete, but I'm uncertain at this moment. Yeah the more I think about this, the more I think it's unnecessary per Blahblah32blahblah --Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful data for further reference whenever the subject of "big market" and "small market" baseball teams comes up (and it does come up, frequently, in discussions about baseball and other sports). Whichever user said "Population has nothing to do with baseball" is 180 degrees off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Market size isn't defined by the teams immediate metro area... This would then create something that is very misleading. A team's home market goes well beyond just 1 metro area per team in almost every case. Take for example the Red Sox. Would you say their market is confined to just Greater Boston (which isn't even an official metro designation)? That leaves out Maine... New Hampshire... Vermont... Rhode Island...Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly there is going to be some percentage of each game's attendance comprised of vacationers or fans who made a special trip. But unlike football, which is only played once a week, baseball is played every day; and the regular attendees are likely to come from the immediate metro area. Without its regular attendees, a team won't last long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: The rewriting of the page has completely altered the discussion, so it is beneficial to keep it open longer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an entirely different article, and a much better one. One of the failings of the original list (which looked like this when it was nominated) was that it operated under the assumption that the fan base was confined to the people residing within the city limits. The use of the metropolitan population info and the addition of context (by Brian Halvorsen), and the mentioning of areas without teams as a sentence rather than as part of the list, are all marked improvements. He and User:GVnayR have responded to the objections presented by the original article. Mandsford 15:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Brian. Amending my statement to give credit where credit was due. Mandsford 02:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as the info here is not relevant enough to be anything else than a footnote on Current Major League Baseball franchises. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has undergone a large revamp since original nomination, removing any notion that it is nothing more than cruft. Well-sourced, noteworthy article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs) 07:12, September 24, 2010
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to do with baseball. As for market analysis, that is for advertisers, not encyclopedias. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated before, you're thinking of television and radio markets. This pertains to the people who attend the game. That has nothing to do with advertising. And even if it did, there is nothing against covering a business strategy. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People that attend the game? There are 19 million people that attend the Mets? I did not realize how large these stadiums really were, they appear to be much smaller in person. It looked to me this was a lsit that showed the population of the cities the teams were located in. So what? There is a list of cities by population already, there is no need for a list of cities with just baseball teams, a person can cross refernce that information easily, if they ever needed it, which is not likely. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has EVERYTHING to do with baseball, or professional baseball anyway. There are plenty of sources that talk about the issues faced by smaller-market teams, so this list is not "synthesis", it's merely a quantifying of established information. Baseball is entertainment, and it's all about money. The constant quest is to bring more people into the stadiums. And that's harder to do if your market is smaller. As Bill Veeck once said, "If you had to depend on the 'true fan' for your revenue, you'd be out of business by Mother's Day." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is nice and all, but this article is just a list of cities by population which happens to have a baseball team. It does not cover anything, no theories, no analysis of markets or 'true fan' versus passing interest attendance. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My opinion has not changed - maybe if the article had a new title I'd be able to rethink things. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we going to keep relisting this until enough people come along and say "delete" or can we just close this as no consensus already?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs) 17:39, September 25, 2010
  • I agree, I didn't see the need to keep it open. But I think the keeps have it by a comfortable margin (one user voted delete twice and another is now semi-retired). Also, no one on the delete side has made a valid argument in my opinion. Population is directly related to baseball, we have proven that with the sources cited in the article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By two is not a comfortable margin, and that is only after so many deletes have struck there vote. It is no consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of votes is not what counts in an AfD. Just saying "I don't like it", which many users have, is not a valid argument. Population is directly related to baseball. That is why there are two teams in the most populous cities in America. It is about who attends the game. Not all 19 million will attend a game, but you have a better chance of pulling some of those 19 million. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not just at the major league level. Minor league classifications, and sizes of ballparks, are a function of realistic attendance goals, which are based in no small part on the size of the cities. Which is why Buffalo is Triple-A, and Peoria is single-A, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 27 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_population&oldid=1140103989"