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 merge to 2011 World Series#Game 6. There is clearly a lot of emotion about this topic coming from several editors, but in the end this AfD needs to be decided based on policy and on the strength of the arguments given on both sides. On a simple headcount, the group of editors who believe that the article should be deleted/merged/redirected is somewhat larger than those who believe it should be kept as is. Somewhat larger, but not overwhelmingly larger. So, looking at the arguments: those supporting a merge/redirect make the case that the coverage for this game is routine when compared to the coverage of other individual world series games. They also make the case that few (or none) of other WS games have their own articles, and that the content of the article is mostly a play-by-play recap of the game, which is not encyclopedic. Neither of these arguments are convincingly refuted. The keep !voters rationale hinges mainly on the emotional aspect of the game, i.e. that it was an exciting game. But none of the keep voters advance an argument for why this particular game should have an article while most (or all) of other WS games do not. In other words, what unique event transpired in this game which sets it so far apart from other individual games? This question was never answered during the AfD. The article has some good content though, and the relevant content should be moved to the article on the series. —SW— yak 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Six of the 2011 World Series

[edit]
Game Six of the 2011 World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry to do this, because it's a good faith effort that took some work, but this doesn't meet our guidelines. This game is not notable independent of the 2011 World Series, where there already is a brief synopsis of this game. Further, this fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final game, it was part of the final series, and there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable outside of routine coverage for a World Series game. As exciting as it was, it doesn't get its own article. Even Baseball Reference Bullpen doesn't give the game its own individual article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS has its own article, and as much as I thought it would be deleted at some point, that one hasn't even been nominated. Furthermore, this article has a lot of sources to back it up. While the event is still rather recent, this game will probably be remembered for years to come. For all these reasons (and there are probably others), this article should stay. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Muboshgu was the same user who reverted my edits (twice!) when I tried to expand the summary of Game 6 in the main 2011 World Series article to give readers more information. If I were an admin, I'd have him blocked for disruption. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article. I was unaware of that 1992 NLCS Game 7 article, but I'll nominate it now for the same reasons I nominated this one. As for my editing, Wikipedia is not for game recaps, which is what you were adding. Those edits, and this page, are not in keeping with Wikipedia's stated mission. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, am I to understand that before Muboshgu felt the need to delete this article, he/she felt the need to delete material related to this game on the main 2011 World Series page? So I can presume that if this article gets deleted, and I go to appropriately expand the Game 6 subsection on the 2011 World Series page, that Muboshgu will follow me and delete that too? Vidor (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How could the article on 1992 NLCS Game 7 have survived almost 2 years without so much as being nominated? That is something I am very puzzled about myself. It just doesn't make any sense. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it never came to anyone's attention doesn't mean it should stay. Article age is another argument to avoid in deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories for individual baseball games and individual World Series games. Presumably those categories are allowed to be populated, and in fact they have. Ido not even know how to respond to the allegation that "there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable". I provided five sources calling this the best Workd Series game of all time. Vidor (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can compare those games and I did. Game 6 has become lore. There are four occasions in all of World Series history where a player drove in the tying run with his team one out from elimination, and two of those four times came in this game. Vidor (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just personal opinion. There are reliable sources on high-profile sports websites that say things like that. For example, here. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Muboshgu is right about that. Terence7 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "delete" !vote if the suggestion is to merge the content. If the content is merged, the original needs to be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if it's merged, that means the content is removed from the Game 6 article. That's all I meant. Terence7 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable Terence7 is plainly incorrect above, per WP:SPORTSEVENT this article meets that guideline. I repeat, I produced five sources that called this the greatest World Series game of all time. I can find more. It won't be hard. I find it absurd beyond expression that one fielding play from a game apparently is safe in its own article, but this game is not. Or that Armando Galarraga, who didn't even pitch a perfect game, gets his own article for NOT throwing a perfect game, but this article isn't notable. An article about a first-round playoff game by a team that didn't even win the World Series that year is listed as a good article (!!!) but this article has to go. A regular season game that did not even decide a playoff spot is secure in its own article, but this game has to go. I suggest that if this article does not clear the judgements of Wikipedia then the categories "World Series games" and "Major League Baseball games" should be deleted, as should all articles within. Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. Who are you to say that? Is the suggestion here that there needs to be a time delay? If so, can I get a ruling on how long that time delay has to be so I can come back and post this article again in 10 or 20 years? Maybe I can set the alarm on my bed for 2031. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four individuals in the history of baseball have hit a walkoff homer when their team was facing elimination: Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Carlton Fisk in 1975, Kirby Puckett in 1991 and David Freese in 2011. And we are told this article isn't notable. Mind-boggling. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I see a need for an article of the Mazeroski game, as that's typically considered among the greatest games, and one the biggest shockers in World Series history by top historians (like Harvey Frommer and Jerome Holtzman) and people who been involved in baseball for many years, and it's considered to be the biggest home run of all time by ESPN. But the other two that you mentioned, while memorable, they fit perfectly fine on the proper World Series game. Just because a few sportswriters said it's the best World Series game they ever seen doesn't mean it's to the level of being an "iconic" game. Secret account 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't enough evidence to end this outrageous deletion request, the following are reasons I can offer as to why this article should not be deleted:

  1. It meets bullet point four of "Individual games or series" on WP:SPORTSEVENT, as I've noted above.
  2. The article is part of WP: St. Louis Cardinals's stated mission to "record, preserve, and organize the history of the St. Louis Cardinals and that of all articles related to the team on Wikipedia." A dedicated article for Game 6 will prevent too much information about this particular game from overwhelming the flow of the 2011 World Series article. Wikiproject St. Louis Cardinals supports this article, and strongly condemns any attempts to remove information about the team's history from English Wikipedia that are referenced and made in good faith. Wikipedia St. Louis Cardinals views this deletion request as an infringement on the project's ability, and right, to compile the team's history on English Wikipedia. If a deletion were approved, it would constitute a violation of our Project's right to free speech, such as was done to our Cardinals Care, a deletion that occurred with little discussion and without notification to relevant parties. While I'd rather spend time being productive & working on Bob Gibson's article, I will happily resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis should the deletion request be approved in order to ensure WP: St. Louis Cardinals's right to compile and record information continue.
  3. As Muboshgu said themselves, the article and subsequent edits were created in good faith. Therefore, I strongly feel there's no justifiable reason to impede the progress of this article. After all, Jimbo Wales has always encouraged editors to "be bold"; it's nit-picking like this that I contend has stifled innovation on the wiki since about 2008; I contend editors formerly had much more freedom to contribute to the wiki how & where they wanted, which contributed Wikipedia's notability and success. The deletion of this article would essentially refute the freedom of editors to create & edit as they see fit, and contradict the very nature of what a wiki is. Moreover, I ask how could the existence of this good faith, referenced article be of any concern to other editors? It's no skin off your back if this article is allowed to exist with accurate, referenced info! Monowi (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Monowi, regarding your point #2 above, please see WP:FREESPEECH. I didn't write that, so don't shoot the messenger, but it addresses your comments regarding freedoms and rights on Wikipedia. Also, if you "resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis" if it is deleted as a result of this discussion, it may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, and repeatedly reposting the article is grounds for blocking as disruptive. Again, I didn't make this rule up so don't shoot the messenger. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everybody that's come here and worked to save this article. I don't know what it says about Wikipedia that ridiculous twaddle like Bale Out gets listed as a featured article while a historic baseball game has to fight to survive. I guess Wikipedia isn't very friendly to baseball fans. The criticisms really seem like they are looking for any reason to delete an article that details the event of a single game. Absolutely. Depressing. I remain gobsmacked that anyone could have watched Game 6 and not believe it was a notable game, especially when other articles about individual games are obviously less noteworthy, like the one about Willie Mays' catch or Kirk Gibson's home run. I would, however, recommend improving the article with a box score, image or two if available, and if appropriately sourced, more historical context such as the odds of the Cardinals coming back When I was writing that article, blissfully ignorant of the fact that it would get put on the chopping block minutes after I posted it, I downloaded an AP photo of Nelson Cruz lunging at Freese's triple. I didn't actually upload it to Wikipedia because I hesitated to post a fair use photo that would probably get deleted--little dreaming that the entire article would get nominated for deletion. Anyway, if the article lives, I very much doubt that there's a free image out there that's useful. If the Cruz photo will pass muster I could upload it. As for the suggestion about comeback probability, that is pretty easy; the Baseball Reference page includes a win probability table. Box score--if I can figure out how to code it I could include a score by innings. Vidor (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, and I just noticed that despite writing quite a bit on this page I never actually voted. Vidor (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide Who's "we"? many games has similar types of probability everyday or worse Factually incorrect. And even if it were correct, which it isn't (I invite you to take a look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth inning, then look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth and tenth innings), this was not some ordinary day game in June, this was Game 6 of the World Series, with a championship on the line for Texas. I truly cannot believe that it's necessary to defend the notability of this game. AFD is not a vote You might want to tell that to KuyaBriBri above, who wrote the following when he altered a post by DavidFreese23: struck repeat !vote; while you are allowed to comment as many times as you want you may only !vote once in a discussion. Vidor (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a bit of an aside, back in 2005, Baseball Prospectus published a list of improbable post-season comebacks based on win probability (the list was manually compiled from more recent playoff games, so it is non-exhaustive). However, no one is suggesting that the game is not notable, as all World Series games meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability; the issue under discussion is the best way to relate the events of the game to readers, given that it is part of an overall championship series that provides the context for the game's meaning. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the Wikipedia community. I agree totally with Issacl. The question we should be asking is if the page in question is the best way to convey the events of the game, and I would say it's not. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. This is the way we handle most games; only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context to decide it is that important. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the Wikipedia community. I don't think so. I think "we" is you and a couple of other people. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. Well, this is just silly. The Rangers blew five different leads in this game. They blew saves three different times. There were one, two, three huge hits by the Cardinals in the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings. Attempting to reduce this game to David Freese's home run indicates an agenda to artificially limit the amount of bytes Wikipedia uses to recount this game, and casting about for any excuse to do so. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. You have already cut out a large section of text from the Game 6 subsection on November 29, 2011. You cut nine paragraphs from the text, nearly five thousand bytes. So it would seem that your agenda here is to enforce a cap on how much we are allowed to talk about the events of Game 6, and that if you succeed in deleting this article, you will most likely return to the 2011 World Series article and hack more from that subsection as well. only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game Game 6 quite clearly meets the definition of an extraordinary circumstance. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context Silly. I asked upthread how many years we should be required to wait before posting this article. I received no answer. I have also asked how it is that the categories "Major League Baseball games" and "World Series games" are populated with articles that are clearly less notable than Game 6, but those articles are allowed to stand while this one apparently must be deleted. I received no answer on that one either. I bet this AfD would not have been posted if the New York Yankees had been involved in this game. Vidor (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I read that Muboshgu is a fan of the New York Yankees. He clearly doesn't want this article to exist. He nominated it for his own personal reasons. The "reasons" he provided were just flimsy excuses. This is a bad-faith nomination. It should be withdrawn and the nominator indef blocked. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 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.
More