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.
Move to Johan Santana's no-hit game or a similar title and leave a redirect Regardless of whether it is overkill or not, it follows the precedent set to have articles or links to other teams' no-hit lists (For example, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters). As such, I would feel more comfortable leaving something at that title until a general ruling is made on all team no-hit lists. But as it has only a single entry, the article should be written to favor Johan's accomplishment, which many sources either likely exist already or likely will within the next 24-48 hours. In 100 years or so, when the Mets have 3-4 no-hitters like most other ballclubs have, we could turn it back into a list pbp 05:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list would forever stand at one entry, then yes, it'd be overkill. But there is the potential for this list to expand, and since there is a list for each team's no-hitters, setting an arbitrary number of entries necessary for the page to be created seems like overkill. Not creating a page because there aren't any no-hitters makes sense; not creating a page because there aren't ENOUGH no-hitters seems a bit confusing. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"One" is not so arbitrary. Enumeration has lots of things to say about set theory and what not, but the examples in the OED entry for list (n. 6) are all in the plural. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: go ahead and nominate them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IF there is a list for each team, this one is justifiable. Maybe someone needs to create one for the San Diego Padres, just in case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists can have only one entry and can add more entries as time goes on. Lists can naturally have at least one entry. This is like a birthday list with only one gift listed. We're entering the era of no-hitters so lists will expand faster than a lot of people would think. PlanetStar 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this discussion be expanded to deleting all no hitter team articles with only one entry? BUC (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAll team lists of no-hitters are redundant to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters, so this argument logically requires deleting them all. There is nothing wrong with a list with one entry if we accept the relevance and existence of individual team lists (which seems unquestioned). --Threephi (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PlanetStar, mostly, but also because within the article there is scope for a secondary list of the multiple near misses, which would avoid the issue of having a list article with only one entry; in that case the main list would be only one entry but there would also be a secondary list with more. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does sound strange to have a list of one, but a club's history of no-hitters receives lots of coverage to meet WP:GNG. In the case of the Mets, the near no-hitter are also large part of the topic. Even the San Diego Padres, who have zero no-hitters, could have an article on their near misses based on the number of times it gets mentioned in the press. Rename the article if needed, but some topic on Mets no-hitters is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 4 June 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.