Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball entrance music

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball entrance music

The article itself is unencyclopedic and violates Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is also full of original research. The few footnotes within the article are mostly original research also. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a very impressive collection of WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs)
Delete: Weak delete for being pretty nearly unverifiable and an attempt to fix the mercury. This music changes rapidly, and by the time we could say what each is, it is out of date. Geogre 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hoopydink. It does violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it does have a lot of original research. --Tu s pm^{(C | @)} 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to maintain. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps with a WP:CITE tag on it. I think it's interesting, not indiscriminate. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its interesting nature, could you please explain how this article satisfies Wikipedia policies in regards to original research and verifiability? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR defines original research as "material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source." Almost every song now has a link to a reliable, mainstream news source. It seems more like source-based research. It doesn't fall into the seven categories of original research either: no new or irrelevant theories or thoughts (i.e. "Player A should play this song because...) are being proposed. SliceNYC 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . too much info which is unverifiable. --Ageo020 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is such listcruft. A more sensible approach would be a category. Alphachimp ^talk 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a category would help, though. In a list, the player and song can be matched up together. Categorizing them all wouldn't show who uses what song and it couldn't link to an article explaining why that song is used. SliceNYC 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. The "original research" policy can be satisfied by eliminating the footnotes and explanations, which were superflous anyway. 2. The claim that music changes rapidly is incorrect for the much of the music listed on the page. Players with rapidly changing music are omitted. 3. This seems like a strange place to enforce the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Consider the Wrestling entrance music page? What about the vast lists of interstates? This page belongs here as much as those. Not worth the time deleting this one, when there are many better areas to direct our attention towards. 04:13 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the original research policy be satisfied by eliminating the footnotes? Furthermore, just because there are similar articles doesn't mean that this one should be kept ("two wrongs don't make a right" is what I'm getting at). Those articles' problems simply haven't been addressed yet. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are where the "original research" is -- ie "player x uses song y because he's friends with the band" and such. The point of the other examples was to counter the charges above and to illustrate that the suggestion that this article be deleted was misguided. 07:13 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I have done a lot of work on this article and, obviously, would rather not have those contributions go for naught. I am willing to improve the article to satisfy the concerns of some of the other Wikipedians, such as verifying and citing music and deleting the lesser, anecdotal contributions (mostly of non-registered users who add songs that have come out in the last couple of months). I have done some verifying as a start, which I hope is a step in the right direction. SliceNYC 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest saving the information on your computer and then posting it on a baseball message board where your work will be able to be displayed and appreciated. Also, feel free to userfy this article and recreate it once verifiability has been established. As the article stands now, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Yes, this article contains original research, but it doesn't contain personal views, political opinion, interpretation, or any of the other elements that are stated to justify excluding original information. It's a collection of facts that so far as I can tell don't exist elsewhere. And I've been looking. 2. It's also not "an indiscriminate collection of information." It's a very specific list of baseball players and the songs played when they come to bat. 3. If, however, your policy forces you to exclude this information, please help the creator find a Web site that will host the information. Fans want this info.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Yunipo 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Please explain why you think the article should be kept hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep Interesting and notable enough for me to refrain from a voting delete. Really needs some kind of verification though, since WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy (and notability is not - there I said it). Do the article creators think that given a couple of months, they can find good (i.e. not blogs/personal websites etc.) sources for verification purposes? If they think they can, I will change my vote to keep, just to give them the extra time. And I'm not even a baseball fan. Cricket is better. So there. Bwithh 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authors seem to be making a honest-to-goodness attempt at verification, and the spirit of baseball melted my deletionist heart etc etc etc. Changing my vote to Keep Bwithh 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be userfied for that period of time and then recreated hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sportscruft. -- GWO
Delete unmaintainable list of arbitrary enterteinment medium used in connection with another arbitrary entertainment medium. There is no underlying encyclopaedic topic baseball entrance music. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is anyone suggesting the list is complete and includes every single baseball player? We have many incomplete lists on Wikipedia and they are not considered "unmaintainable". Instead, we ask everyone to pitch in and add if they can, not delete the page. SliceNYC 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have an entire category about football/soccer culture and all the minutiae that goes along with that sport (don't get me wrong, I love that category), I fail to see why a single article about a facet of baseball culture that has been around for decades and shows how some players choose to present themselves to their home fans is problematic. It is not a catch-as-catch-can grab bag, as SliceNYC has noted, but rather a list of the players and music that have made themselves notable in the sport over time. What can be done to make it more "appropriate" for an encyclopedia, if that has to be done to keep the article? BigKahunaMan BigKahunaMan 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For better or worse, entrance music for hitters and pitchers is becoming a huge part of the sport's culture. J-Red 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Outtaherephils[reply]
Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --JJay 12:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced (although not the right format) and interesting --Astrokey44 13:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to note that interesting does not necessarily mean encylcopedic. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter how interesting this article may be, it's not encyclopedic. If people really need to know that, say, Mariano Rivera always comes onto the field with "Enter Sandman", then they should just put that in each players page. Mikeeilbache r 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an encyclopedic merit to music in baseball. Baseball, for 150 years, has been a major part of American (and Caribbean and Asian) society, something that has been reaffirmed by thousands of essays, museum exhibits and movies. The game has constantly come in contact with various aspects of daily life -- film, politics, etc. An article about one of these connections is encyclopedic and relevant, even if it is a more modern phenomena. SliceNYC 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The list is has little to do with baseball as a game. Furthermore, while baseball has been around for a long time and is "America's Pastime", entrance music is quite new and rather trivial. A list of entrance music is nowhere near on the same level as articles on baseball films or a list of ceremonial first pitches (which have relevant historical and encyclopedic contexts outside of baseball). The list is irrelevant trivia about a minor aspect of player's tastes and ballpark atmosphere and as such, unencyclopedic hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:16, 29 July 2006 (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.