Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball controversies

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 delete. I'm willing to userfy on request. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball controversies

Major League Baseball controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ill defined article. What is and what isn't a controversy? WP:OR is also an issue.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ...William 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:LISTPURP. This is a discriminate, well-sourced list article that provides useful information organized in one place. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's been a lot of controversy articles in the past (Olympics, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.), all this article really needs are more WP:RS, but oversl, it provides quite a good amount of info. ZappaOMati 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a mess. It does not define what a controversy is and in fact much of what is on the page are not even controversies. Primarily Original research and the opinions of the writers. There is a difference between a controversy and a scandal, which many of these would be closer to. Article at the moment is a slapshod collection of unrelated events and if this article is allowed to stand i can see this only getting worse. Spanneraol (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actual definition of a controversy, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion". Actual definition of a scandal, "1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc., 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. 3. damage to reputation; public disgrace. 4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip. 5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense". So, under these definitions, Black Sox Scandal should be removed, Pete Rose situation was a scandal, but the debate about him and Shoeless Joe Jackson getting into the Hall of Fame are controversies. Brian Stow incident fits a scandal and is not a controversy. The pine tar incident is not a controversy. So the sections in the article that could fit; Jackie Robinson should be "The color barrier", California Baseball, Steroids, steroid era statistics (maybe), native american mascot names (not purely baseball though), and others that have not been added. Such as: The DH rule, inter-league play, expansion, multiple leagues, contract jumping, the all-star game voting, the single-season home run record (the asterisk *). These are just a few off the top of my head. Maybe a separate list can document the "scandals".Neonblak talk - 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't scandals also be controversial? They're not exactly mutually exclusive concepts.--SGCM (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then would it be appropriate to rename this page to "Major League Baseball scandals"? ZappaOMati 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the list borderline violates WP:OR. Definitely violates WP:NPOV. I mean seriously, how could you possibly mention the trivial name change of the Reds (which was more of a face-saving move than controversy) and the Giants and Dodgers moving to California (limited to NY area and this was more of a private franchise business move than a controversy) and not include the asterisk on Maris' record (described as the biggest PR disaster in MLB history). Also, many sources are not in line with WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources, as I see 2 refs from Bleacher Report (completely unreliable) and one from a blog originating from the LA Weekly (a "free weekly tabloid-sized 'alternative weekly'"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a hopeless and indiscriminate mishmash of unrelated events grouped by someone's POV idea of what constitutes a "controversy", therefore falling into the realm of original research by synthesis. Add in that some entries could hardly be considered controversial by a reasonable person (Reds becoming the Redlegs for a time), or not controversial and only tangentally related to MLB itself (Shaw beating), or just flat out made up (Baseball was dropped from the Olympics due to cost and lack of global popularity, not MLB's non participation). There is no set criteria for inclusion, and therefore no actual cohesion to the article. It is basically an ill-defined category in article space. Resolute 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the only things in MLB history that pops in my mind as controversaries, are the Black Sox Scandle, Drug usage & Pete Rose gambling. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I would love to see a page such as this one, it's unfortunate that the criteria as to what is and is not "controversial" becomes subjective. When minor single game "incidents" get portrayed as full blown MLB controversies, thats a clue that there may be a problem as to how this article is being presented.--JOJ Hutton 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current convention for controversy articles (like Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics) is that incidents describe by reliable sources as controversies are to be included. This helps to prevent problems dealing with subjectivity and original research.--SGCM (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately there are many subtle levels of "controversial". One event may seem more significant to one person based on regional and or team bias than to another person. Minor "single game" or "single play" "controversies" tend to sometimes be overblown by a network of media outlets itching to stand out by looking for juicy stories to report. If this article were to be kept, and I don't think it will, but if it were to be kept, the sections should be restricted to "major" and "lasting" controversies, involving an era of MLB baseball. For instance, instead of a section just on Jackie Robinson, there should be a section on the whole segregation of baseball, that ultimately includes JR breaking the color barrier. Instead of "California baseball" have a section on relocation as a whole. Instead of "Yankees payroll", have a section on breaking the reserve clause and how modern free agency effects salaries. And get rid of anything that is only a single game controversy (Bartman, Stowe, Joyce),. Having those in the article is not helping in this deletion discussion.--JOJ Hutton 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Important controversies should be covered in articles on the history of MLB. Notable controversies (major or minor) should each have their own article, with a category so readers can go from one to another. No reason to list a bunch of them on one page like this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the criteria for having this type of article are neutrality and reliable sourcing, this article meets neither. The items that do have sources are more often simple descriptions of the item in question rather than identifying them as controversial -- and indeed, as noted above, that is because a fair number of the items are not, in fact, controversies, but either scandals or single incidents that simply don't rise to the definition of controversy. As they are written, out of fifteen items (currently as of this comment) in the article, only one (steroids) would qualify for inclusion in such an article without shifting the frame of reference, and that one would need a hefty rewrite. Also, as noted above, many of the most important true controversies in MLB history (the designated hitter, playoff expansion, interleague play, instant replay, Bud Selig as commissioner while an owner, contraction, collusion, and on and on and on) are not even included. While an article on MLB controversies could be useful, this just flat out ain't it. Perhaps the page could be moved to a subpage of a willing user so that a legitimately workable page can be developed. -Dewelar (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy so the article can be collaboratively worked on until it is ready for primetime. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is what I was getting at. I just couldn't remember the proper voting term. -Dewelar (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone to the article a few times in the past few days with the solemn intent on actually working on the sections in a vain attempt to straighten it up and make it presentable. But every time I do, I realize that the article will probably be deleted anyway, so it's most likely a waste of time.--JOJ Hutton 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not a big fan of shouting "indiscriminate" for potentially long lists, but this one is, as there are controversies in baseball every day, from blown calls like the Galaraga incident (albeit not to break up perfect games, but where do we draw the line) to controversial plays (e.g., bunting to try to break up a no hitter, whether successful or not), to larger scale issues like free agency (including but not limited to whether free agency should exist or not) to manager or player decisions that turn out badly (in virtually every game) and numerous player relation issues going back to the 19th century. As further examples, the list mentions the franchise moves to California (apparently for the Giants and Dodgers but for some reason not the Athletics), but virtually every proposed franchise move has been controversial (whether or not the move was made, or even regardless of whether it was a realistic possibility or mere speculation); sadly enough, the color line was probably less controversial than breaking the color line; there were controversies over playing the World Series; numerous gambling controversies besides the Black Sox and Pete Rose; controversies over considering the American League (and earlier leagues) as major leagues; controversies over fights and certain injuries (including the one death); and many more. And it is not clear what constitutes a controversy. For example, I am not sure what was "controversial" about the Steve Bartman incident from a Major League persepctive. Was it that he was escorted from the stadium (before the end of the game by the way)? That fans were mad at him? If any play or event for which a reliable source uses the term "controversy" or "controversial" is eligible for the list, then there would be hundreds of events per year to include. Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gallaraga incident is actually a good example of the failure of this list, as there is absolutely no controversy there. Everyone, including the umpire himself, admits he blew the call. It was a newsworthy incident, even a noteworthy one. But controversial? Not in the slightest. Resolute 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also another example of what "could" happen with an article like this. Single incidents being consisdered "controversial" on their own merit. Whats really controversial about this incident is MLB's use or in this case non-use of "instant replay", which would have, if IR was in effect, clearly overturned this call. This incident could be used as an example, but hardly as a stand alone controversy.--JOJ Hutton 19:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either userfy or fork. Either this thing needs to be moved out of article space until we can fix it (and yes, I'd be happy to help) or it needs to be fixed now by paring it down to a bare-bones list, with no more than a sentence per entry and wikilinks to each individual controversy. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and it smacks less of OR/SYNTH to me and more of recentism. 7/11 of the entries are 1990s or later. There were plenty more notable controversies than some of these. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Controversy" is undefinable. Every time an ump blows a call or a manager stays too long with a pitcher that's gassed, it's controversial, isn't it?!?! Carrite (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is an OR situation and can likely only ever be an OR situation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DJSasso and others' comments above. This is a subjectively compiled list, unavoidably and incurably mired in original research. Those scandals that satisfy GNG and which otherwise merit stand-alone articles should be linked to the "History of baseball," player biography, and team history articles, as appropriate. I recommend that the closing admin permit the userfication of the article for any WikiProject Baseball editor who desires to make sure no worthwhile content is lost. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2012 (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/Major_League_Baseball_controversies&oldid=1138046730"