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 redirect to 500 home run club. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

600 home run club and 700 home run club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated these pages for deletion last year and I'd like to try again, because it was a split decision and I didn't make the most convincing argument. Last time, I said "nobody ever talks about a 600 or 700 home run club." I was proven wrong with WP:GHITS, but that still doesn't make "600" or "700" home run clubs notable enough to exist on their own. The 500 home run club remains the well known marker. Any detail on 600+ or 700+ should be kept the 500 home run club article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you are renominating even though it was closed as a keep and nothing substantial changed to make the topic more likely to be deleted except you want to change your argumentation? I would argue that this might qualify for a procedural close of some variety, but I don't know policies enough. I'll let someone else make that call. matt91486 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NOTAGAIN may be what you're looking for? ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly not what I was thinking of, it's entirely appropriate to respond with! matt91486 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Your criticism is valid, but in this case, I think my renominating this article is legit. The deletion was avoided in large respect due to my poor argument being shot down, but not as much because the pages themselves proved notable. Also, it's been nine months since that AfD (not like I'm renominating it a week or two later) and consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for want of significant coverage of the concept in third-party reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club, a featured list that covers the topic already. The only thing that changed between the articles is the #s, and people with clue will be able to determine who is in what club(s). Tavix | Talk 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable topic discussed empirically in the press albeit the sports section for about a century, topic of historical significance that people would expect to find in en encyclopedia and let's not forget even sport's writers have won pultizers. {Unsigned vote by Thisbites}
Please show us some of these reliable sources you're talking about (they don't have to be Pulitzer Prize winners) because these articles don't contain any sources that indicate why 600 and/or 700 should be considered such a milestone. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I think this is an acceptable result. What happens someday if we have two players in the 800 home run club? Will someone argue for a separate article for two people? I think 500 is suitable for a threshold from which all others can be added at higher thresholds. CycloneGU (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 500 home run club on the basis that these constitute a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted. I believe that discussing the various levels may also enable the main article to be more interesting. Ma^t_chups 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club. Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the article on both clubs have not been found that discuss indepth the club as a whole, and need to go beyond coverage of the milestone by an individual player. This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This list doesn't tell us anything the 500 HR club tells us. One day it may be notable, but right now it isn't. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club. I am not sure that the 600 or 700 home run clubs are non-notable, but I agree that any information about them is better included in the 500 home run club article. Rlendog (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Should the target article be renamed to 500 and over club? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:28, 2 May 2011 (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.