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.
Every time this page comes up on my radar I get angry. It's clearly against WP:NOT in several ways. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my amendment to the rational below. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being that this is the third nomination, and the last one was only three months ago, I advise the nominator to be more specific about how it fails WP:NOT before editors rehash previous arguments from AfDs that ended in a no consensus last time and a keep prior to that.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources for this article are opinion pieces. Several of these unbreakable records are obviously breakable. I am not saying that they will be broken. I am saying that they were broken within the past twenty years. The conditions that existed when these individuals established these records are essentially the same for players today as they were for the record setters. The arguments that "the game has changed" don't exist for these records. The only argument for their inclusion seems to be "Wow! That's a big number." There's absolutely no reason why someone similar to Ichiro couldn't break his record of consecutive 200 hit seasons that he just established a couple seasons ago. If Mariano Rivera recovers and comes back next season, as he has indicated he would, he would obviously break the saves record every time he gets a save. The article states that the closest active player is Francisco Cordero. Actually, Rivera is still an active player, and he can potentially break the record in his next outing. The article is titled "List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable" not "List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable by other people." Kinston eagle (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they are opinions from multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs". Regarding the list name, WP:LISTNAME says "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." At any rate, nothing else would consider it unbreakable besides "other people". On a minor note, Rivera is correctly listed as the saves leader.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rivera, an injured but active player, is correctly listed as the saves leader which is why this record is not unbreakable. As soon as he gets one more save, he will have broken that record. Therefore, it is clearly not unbreakable. Even if the article is not deleted, this section at least should be removed. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the record is not changing hands, it would be considered to be "extended" and not "broken".—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear Bagumba. When Federer won Wimbledon this year, every news article covering the event stated that he "extended" his record, not broke it. Once you have it, it can only be "broken" by another player. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this for deletion the first time, changed my mind for the second, and this WP:POINTy "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" deletion nomination (see, I can throw around guidelines too) isn't swaying me back for the flip-flop-flip. Based on the amount of discussion "unbreakable" records get, even if there is no one objective standard for what constitutes "unbreakable", this is a notable subject worthy of an article. The article still needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba pointed out to me that this doesn't meet the definition of "pointy". Good point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a matter of opinion just like the lists of the best and worst movies are. But certain opinions are widely held and can be sourced. There are a couple of categories. One is records that just aren't going to be broken because the game isn't played that way anymore, such as Hoss Radbourn's 59 or 60 wins in the 1884 season. Others are because they are considered to be statistical anomolies, perhaps the most famous being Joe D's 56 game hitting streak, which no one has come close to before or since. This is not just opinions and guesswork. Some figger filberts (Bill James types) have used statistical methods to support their opinions. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the second AFD, in the end of the day this is simply original research, with the GNG arguement faulty at best (what makes Life Magazine, etc a reliable source on this topic). Secretaccount 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Life is part of Time Inc, so it wouldn't be that hard to imagine them getting access to sports experts to compile the list. I don't think we would discount a sports-related article in Time just because they are not a pure sports outfit. I dont see OR, as this is sourced (and any unsourced text can be removed). I am slightly uncomfortable with lists such as this based on sources applying a label to something, such as basketball players being called floppers in Flop (basketball). However, is there a policy or guideline that prevents this type of article?—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it depends on how the content is sourced. This article is about writers opinions on which baseball record they believe it's "unbreakable", and then using different sources to prove their point. That is a clear cut example of a synthesis of published material that advances a position, and the position this article advances is that this record is considered unbreakable by this source and then it uses current statistics to back that source position mainly because obvious rule/style changes that came as the sport advanced. It's OR at its obvious. Secretaccount 04:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not OR. If I say that Joe D's 56 is unbreakable and I run some stats to "prove" it, that's OR. But if Bill James has done so, that's a reliable source, not OR. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the exception (and the reason why this page probably exists) as DiMaggio's record has been discussed in so many newspaper articles, journals, and even whole books, any analysis of it, if written correctly, easily meets GNG and can avoid original research as its a common topic. But that discussion belongs on his article, or better yet a new article about the streak which I'm surprised one haven't bother creating it, not a whole subpage where it throw other records in there. And if I'm not mistaken James wrote a notable essay that his record can be broken under the correct conditions. But that's avoiding my point, a journalist opinion on why this record might be "unbreakable" and throwing random stats from different sources or their own original research supporting that view is a synthesis supporting the unbreakable point of view. Still OR no matter how you put it. GNG is moot here. Secretaccount 05:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the case at least for the"Most career saves" and "Longest hitting streak" sections, which are sourced by articles and not stat sites. Note that a source like this one from NBCSports.com provides statistical analysis of why it is considered unbreakable, even if I don't agree with a lot of the logic. Combining different references with opinions on an unbreakable record is not all that different than combining a lot of references claiming Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nothing has really changed in the past 3 months, this really seems like a personal dislike. The only parts of this article I am not the biggest fan of are the Ichiro and Rivera records as they are extremely recent and have not been as established as the other records as truly unbreakable. However, as with the other records, if they can be reliably sourced then they can be added. Even if you think a couple of these records are not appropriate then make a case for removing those specific entries, not for deleting the entire article. As for saying that the game has changed doesn't apply to these records is absurd. Most pitching records were set over 90 years ago due to fundamental differences in playing style that no longer take place. This is as encyclopedic as something like this can get. As with the "movies considered the best/worst" articles, it's possible to take a collective opinion, which may seem subjective in the abstract, and turn it into an appropriate article. I'm in favor of adding even more reliable sources to bolster how unbreakable these records are, not for deleting it outright due to a minimal, if at all, policy based argument. RoadView (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't avoid the original research question. Backing it with more random stats will just make the article worse. Secretaccount 05:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on your opinion regarding "random stats". Most of these unbreakable records are covered by multiple articles pertinent to the subject at hand. Multiple sources, not just one single journalist making claims. That also blows your OR argument out of the water completely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Many of the sources have 'unbreakable' in the title. Also, Original Research is not a reason to delete, unless the entire article is OR, which this is obviously not, considering the sixty-three reliable sources listed. The solution to any OR in this case is to rephrase the offending statements to more closely match what the sources say. This should be done in the course of normal editing and is beyond the purview of AfD. The Steve 10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page making you angry is not reason for deletion. Disagreeing with whether an individual record is unbreakable is not reason for deletion (though if published sources disagree then that disagreement can be mentioned). It's not OR because it's published in reliable sources. Those are all the arguments for deletion that I see. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while "considered X" is iffy ground for most articles, there is sufficient RS'ed commentary for these records that I see no problem with retaining the list as-is. If you or I consider something unbreakable, that's OR. But if multiple major sportswriters are published as saying so... that's reliable sourcing, and hence notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the other keep comments above. Incidentally, I hope the nominator's comment that "I get angry" is meant hyperbolically. I can imagine situations (such as certain types of BLPs) in which I might be "angry" that Wikipedia contains an article; a list of baseball records shouldn't be one of these situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources describe these records specifically as unbreakable, so this clearly passes WP:GNG, for starters. Not liking the article is not a justification for deletion. As for WP:NOT, I fail to see in what way that would apply to this article. It's not an indiscriminate, sprawling list of statistics; with less than twenty total items, it's a very precisely focused list of the handful of records that sources describe as unbreakable. There's also no original research involved in presenting the information. —Torchiesttalkedits 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTOPINION doesnt apply because there are reliable sources. Neutrality can be fixed if that is the concern, and is not a reason to delete. NOTCRYSTALBALL does not apply because this is again verifiable. NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply since the content (except for the Rivera entry) is not based on breaking news, but analysis of records years or decades after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After consideration, I can't come up with any way in which this list violates the sections of WP:NOT that Nathan cited above. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Records are only highly unlikely to be broken given current conditions; however, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. As I recall, both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus have written about how records like 300 wins may become approachable again in the future. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. For example, the difficulty in breaking the career MLB record for wins is best described in the article on wins, which already has discussion of the changing demands on starting pitchers. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, the basis of this article is not much different from List of films considered the worst, which survived it's 8th AfD nomination in 2011. There are a lot of "List of ... considered ..." articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure a lot of them are OR. But if there are reliable sources to back up the opinion, it's hard for me to say its unencyclopedic just because it's difficult to determine whose opinion to include. I can see why people would want to delete this, it's just not an obvious call based on an existing policy. Village pump might be a better forum to get wider opinions beyond keep/delete !votes as the issue of "List of ... considered ..." articles are not unique to baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, there's no central set of reasons why the records are considered unbreakable; each one has its own specific set of conditions (triples would depend a lot on ballpark layouts and field conditions, for example). There is a reduction in extreme performances that comes with evolution of talent, but other counterbalancing influences have also arisen. It's not that the individual discussions can't be sourced, but that each of them is, at best, only loosely coupled to the others. Whereas a list of, say, the worst movies can share a general discussion on criteria for effective story-telling and cinematography, these records require specific discussions on how to interpret the influences of the changes throughout MLB history on the record in question. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nominator's personal opposition is based on emotion rather than rationale; that's the worst reason to delete an article. For all those arguing original research, please! 63 refs from a variety of reliable sources and you're still labeling this OR? Not to mention that this was debated just three months ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet any of the conditions of not as mentioned above. Also it is clearly sourced to reliable sources so it isn't an OR situation. The abundance of sources clearly indicate its a notable topic, so there is nothing that leads to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm new to this debate, having not participated in the previous AfDs for this article. When I saw the article title, I expected fancruft and a likely "delete" vote. When I actually read it, I saw that it was well-written, properly sourced, and "records considered to be unbreakable" amply supported by reliable sources. IMO, this is a strong "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colapeninsula summed it up nicely. Also, enough is enough. What has changed since the last AfD? AutomaticStrikeout 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with significant pieces on the general topic of unbreakable baseball records from Life, NBC Sports, Sports Illustrated, and Morning Journal. Original research is a content issue, not a reason to delete in this case. Even if one is of the opinion that the logic used by the sources is flawed, balancing information that these records are breakable should be added if they exist for neutrality; it is not a reason to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 29 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.