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. Tone 11:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Diego Padres no-hitters[edit]

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

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

Mainly for several reasons. First, there are no lists here; that is, neither the New York Mets nor the San Diego Padres have ever thrown no-hitters in either of their franchise histories. These two lists - both of which, as well as other similar lists, were created with boilerplate headings and sections (I'll question the validity of the other ones later) - can be basically summed up in one sentence, which is what I stated above. To that end, it makes no sense to have a list article without a list. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we should not have empty lists on the presumption that either team may in the future get a no-hitter. Lastly, this acts to confuse and mislead readers into reading a list in an attempt to find a list of no-hitters that team was gotten, only to find nothing. –MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(before I could transclude this to the deletion sorting pages) The creator does not object to the deletion of either list, as indicated here. –MuZemike 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I opined that this would happen at Template_talk:Lists_of_no-hitters_by_franchise where I got no response. I'm surprised these lists were actually created. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It makes no sense to create a team no-hitters list when the team hasn't even thrown one yet.—Chris!_c/t 20:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The text of these two articles is basically identical fill-in-the-blank "The ______ are a Major League Baseball franchise based in ______. Established in ____, they play in the __________ division. Pitchers for the _____ have thrown __ no-hitters in franchise history. A no-hitter is officially recognized... etc. etc." I don't see the point in any of these articles anyway. There's a sortable table within the excellent List of Major League Baseball no-hitters that will show which teams have had a share of the 269 no-hitters in MLB history (that one could be improved by showing the common link between teams across history the Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves). Mandsford 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both It's a sizable, well-written article with references. ..yet it's a ton of writing that amounts to zero content about a San Diego Padre or New York Met hurling a no-hitter. Zero no-hitters, zero cred for article to remain. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither of those team has ever thrown no-hitters in franchise histories, but I'm pretty sure that Padres and Mets will throw no-hitters in the future, but who knows?, maybe either team may throw their first no-hitter next season. Whenever they do, then we can recreate those articles. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per other delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- otherwise I'd have to create List of New England Patriots no-hitters, List of Boston Breakers no-hitters, and List of Boston Bruins no-hitters. Ma^t_chups 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: For pity's sake ... THIS much detail with THIS many sources about something that has not yet happened and may never happen? This is the type of completionist idiocy that has led to Sudan in the 2006 Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican City type articles. Ravenswing 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty rediculous idea for a list... -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. arguably speedy delete under CSD A3 - no content. I will say, though, that if these articles are deleted, I will miss them greatly. Still, they don't even qualify as articles. harej 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to empty set. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per harej, this fails under CSD A3 - It has no content, and frankly, it's a ridiculous idea for a list in the first place. Bin it. Barking Fish 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree. There is plenty of content. Pointless, trivial, and nonnotable as it may be, there is content. Ma^t_chups 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to empty set per Newyorkbrad. I think that is a cleverer solution than deleting. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, 20 mule team deleting is more clever than that, and, like the borax, more effective. Yeah, redirect to empty set, I get it. QSMAO-- quietly smiling and saying "bravo" even more quietly. Mandsford 19:11, 27 November 2010 (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.