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 keep. Shown to be sourceable, but it would have been MUCH better if the sources had actually been added to the article during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball blackout policy[edit]

Major League Baseball blackout policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No sources for two years NDState 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Not only unsourced, but is covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy CTJF83 chat 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The reason that this is "covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy" is because this is a sub-page of MLB. It is not a content fork, but a page established to keep the original page from becoming overlong and thus unreadable. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is horrible, what is on this page, that can't be covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy?? The lead is a bunch of rambling, and this page can easily be covered in a paragraph or maybe 2 on the MLB page. CTJF83 chat 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - The question here is not whether the sourcing of this article is good. It is not. AfD is not designed to eliminate legitimate articles for the reason of inadequate sourcing, those are to be improved by further editing. The question here isn't even whether this topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms (even though it clearly is) since this is a sub-page of Major League Baseball established for technical reasons to keep the main article short. In fact, there is no reason for this article to have been challenged in the first place... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish people would stop saying speed keep without reading WP:SK, none of the reasons apply CTJF83 chat 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Carrite unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Derild4921☼ 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. The summary at MLB is a short snippet of the page. If something is on this page but not on the other, then it should be kept.--LAAFan 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the same unsourced crap...the page doesn't satisfy WP:V, how long should we keep it unsourced, forever? CTJF83 chat 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unsourced articles are not necessarily candidates for deletion unsourceable articles are. What I think the other keep !voters are saying is "we all know that this exists, so don't try to tell us that you followed WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything." Article can certainly be cleaned up, of course, but AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Carrite and Jclemens. Of course, sources should be added but there is no time limit. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there is the biggest downfall of Wikipedia, 1000 of unsourced pages, and noone caring to delete them till they are fixed. CTJF83 chat 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no deadline on Wikipedia articles. The subject passes notability guidelines, and huffing about a notable article needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not link me to essays and pretend they are policy, in any form. CTJF83 chat 05:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further sources that could be incorporated into the article on this notable subject: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] This AFD is a call for cleanup, and not a valid reason for deletion. If the information in the article cannot be substantiated by reliable sources, then we rewrite the content to fit existing reliable sources. Vodello (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, looks like good sources. CTJF83 chat 17:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are some pretty decent sources in that list, but all the information in those articles could easily be put in just the main MLB page. Why is there a need for its own page? Most of this article is about the blackout areas, however, unless I am blind I have not seen any reliable source verifying the claims of the blackout map or related content... where are they? NDState 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stop defending the article for it to be deleted, sourcing does exist for the policy, being unreferenced isn't a reason for deletion unless no references can be sourced, or the references are too local where WP:NOT#NEWS applies, unreliable, or passing mentions. Secret ^account 04:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. The material has been challenged, the challenge has not been met.. hence delete it. It is lacking a reliable source and none of you have proven otherwise. I looked and looked and looked and there are no reliable sites verifying the majority of the claims in the article. NDState 06:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material shouldn't have been challenged in the first place. It's a frivoulous and ill-considered nom. Challenging perfectly sourceable and notable content with the hopes that it will be deleted based on WP:BURDEN is the saddest form of deletionism because it is NOT improving Wikipedia, it's destroying it. </rant> -- œ^™ 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad as an admin, you can AGF, with a relatively inexperienced user. CTJF83 chat 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes my comments were harsh, and were only out of frustration, and directed at deletionism in general not necessarily this user. I understand the user is doing what they think is right. As far as inexperience goes, I had no idea. Based on their comments here they show a very capable knowledge of policy. -- œ^™ 04:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you OlEnglish for so quickly belitting me, someone very new with wikipedia policy. Its comments like this that run participation away. If this nomination was so frivolous and ill-considered please explain how. All of you keep claiming to have all of these great reliable sources, yet I have not seen any that are considered reliable by wikipedia policy. If its perfectly source-able why has no reliable sources been found or added that support most of the material?? I am glad that I am supposedly just out to delete wikipedia and make it worse. Funny, I was just trying to help out. I saw an article that had been tagged as not having sources for two years and there were still no sources. I sought out reliable sources that would substantiate the claims in the article and could not find any. I thought the correct action was to move to remove it as it appeared to be original research. I studied wikipedia's policies and found that my course of action was justified, based on WP:BURDEN, etc. But all it seems is people are getting in a tizzy over it. These same people still have not provided reliable sources. I wonder whom here is trying to improve wikipedia and whom is trying to destroy it. NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I honestly assumed you were an experienced editor, sorry if you felt belittled. I was in a rather crunchy mood up there. The point I wanted to make is that if an article CAN be verified then it shouldn't be deleted only because someone hasn't sourced it yet. Unsourced articles should be tagged as such, that's why we have the ((unreferenced)) tag. If, as you say, you looked for sources and sincerely couldn't find any to support any of the claims, then taking it to AfD was the correct course of action. However, I do believe this content is verifiable, source reliability notwithstanding, notable, and fills a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Any original research can be edited out. And if that means stubbifying it then so be it. -- œ^™ 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely notable subject. Last I checked, we didn't have a deadline on articles. Cleanup requests aren't a valid reason to delete. Vodello (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no sources. According to WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence lies in the editor that added the material. Since they clearly have not provided the sources it most certainly qualifies for deletion. The material was challenged two years ago through the use of a tag and it was not responded to and the issue was not fixed, hence the burden of evidence has not been met. Additionally, according to that same page: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." The editors have been given ample time. Additionally, I searched for reliable sources and was not able to find any in regards to the majority of the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states that material that fails to be verified can be deleted. Proper process was followed requesting sources, none were added... it can and should be deleted. NDState 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've yet to see any of you Keep "voters" provide even one reliable source on this information. CTJF83 chat 05:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• [8] Secret ^account 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone actually read this article, it essentially only supports that there is a blackout, it doesnt detail the specifics. Again, this does not support most of the article. NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the article clearly needs to be rewritten and not deleted. The subject is clearly notable, and we have many reliable sources to establish that claim. You're calling for cleanup, and you're more than welcome to fix it yourself. Vodello (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I could find a reliable source that fits what wikipedia describes as a reliable source then I would add them. I cant find any reliable sources and apparently neither can anyone else. NDState 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please tell me how the seven sources I provided from ESPN and books are unreliable. Vodello (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry I did not see your links before I posted. However, since you asked: http://www.bizofbaseball.com : (is this a blog?) this doesnt really say much about the blackout. One of the articles is not free, and the other articles talk more about the history. They dont support the map or many other claims. I would be fine with an article related to those facts or the history, but the current one appears to be original research. But I think the history and information can easily just be covered in the main MLB page. NDState 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going to repeat myself a third time. I've already said what needs to be done with the unsourced material. Vodello (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing is possible, as demonstrated by Secret's link above and short GNews searches ([9] [10]). Simply because no one has done it until now does not mean the article should be deleted. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE which both say that any article that can be improved through editing is ineligible for deletion (based on those concerns). Regards SoWhy 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "sources" listed do not substantiate the claims made in the article, especially the map. I would still like to see these sources all of you keep talking about (and no they cannot be blogs or copies of this article on other sites, per wikipedia policy). NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If parts of the article cannot be sourced, remove them per WP:V. But to justify the deletion of the whole article, it needs to be completely unverifiable, not only in parts. If it parts of it can be sourced, as demonstrated above, it's no longer a question of deletion but of editing. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you please explain to me how, in the examples above, the claims in the wiki article were verified??? They dont support 90+% of them! I suppose there are some decent links above, but much is still unsourcedNDState 22:06, 5 September 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.