Talk:Luis Alomá

Deletion

Witto Aloma was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED

I want to start by saying that I am not doing this so much to judge as to test the waters. I am a huge baseball fan and have contributed to or created numerous baseball biographies on wikipedia already with more to come. This is not a condemnation of baseball biographies, even ones on lesser known players. However, it seems to me that a point comes when a player does not deserve a page. Witto Aloma played for four seasons, and was only a regular contributor in one of those seasons. He never finished in the top ten in any important category (saves not meaning as much then as now), did not lead in any category, did not make an all-star team, did not win any awards, did not pitch for a pennant winner, did not even pitch 100 games or 300 innings in his career, was not involved in any historic moments, does not have any interesting anecdotes written about him, etc. I know there is no standard for notability of baseball players, and I am not advocating a hard-and-fast line. I just think this player may not be worthy of his own article. Submitted to the community for what will hopefully be fruitful discussion. Indrian 21:45, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm only a very mild baseball fan; but he seems notable enough to me. There are rather few major-league players really, and they all form a dense sort of crossweb, might as well put 'em all on. — Bill 21:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I would agree with Bill. There's little reason not to have them, as it would be tough to draw a line and there would be constant squabbling. AFAIC, all professional players of major sports should be kept. After all, he's at least as important as minor members of the U.S. Congress or New Zealand Parliament, and we keep those. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:35, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think Indrian has a really good question here, and I'd like to hear what more people think about every major league player having their own article. Meelar had a good point when he mentioned that we keep articles on minor members of various political bodies. In this case, I think Witto is helped by the fact that he appears elsewhere on pages about Cuban baseball players, including one that says he's in the now-defunct "Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame" [1] (although I can't say if that's a legitimate hall of fame). - Eisnel 06:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I don't totally understand. Professors have to meet a certain standard to be included (which is rather vague but being dean of a law school is not sufficient) and so do bands (with having released many albums not enough but players of major sports need only have turned up once to be included. This all very much smacks of arbitrariness (not completely surprising when it is a matter of personal opinion) rather than a standard that is applied across the board. I'm not saying that all ballplayers should not be included (since space is not an issue, maybe they should) only that any criterion for ballplayers ought to be applied to others, so that if just turning up is good enough for this guy, it should be good enough in any other field. So you play one season of football, you're notable; you release one album, ditto; you write one book, ditto. Delete unless this standard really is sufficientDr Zen 06:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there are far fewer ballplayers than there are professors, for one thing. You're right that there's a certain degree of arbitrariness, but I contend that applying hard rules in situations like this would inevitably lead to bad results. First of all, what would they be, and how could they be tailored to avoid deleting something that everyone feels should be kept, or vice versa? Second of all, could we do all the research necessary to apply such hard rules? I think that a system of "gut feelings" actually works well here. Just my 2 cents. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are fewer than 200 law school deans in America, though. -- WOT 17:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I do agree that hard rules make life more difficult but I also think that when you are close to a subject your "gut feelings" are going to be good for you, and not necessarily so good for others. I don't follow baseball, so for me, some guy who played a game is a bit "so what". (But Oral Hershiser, say, is notable. Or, erm, Roger Clemens, YKWIM.) However, someone who played for Leeds, my football team, is immensely notable for me. You'd almost certainly vote to delete, for example, Brendan Ormsby. I'm actually suggesting that we don't have a standard of "you played, you're in", and if we do, it should be the same for other areas of interest. I'm not convinced by the argument that it is notable that you play major league baseball because "only" 900 guys are on the rosters any given week and 5 million play as kids. How many millions go to school, and out of them, how many become professors? How many people write and of them how few are published? Ditto for music. Lotsa pub bands, not so many in the charts. I think the cutoffs Indrian mentioned actually make a lot of sense. They don't have to be stringently applied but at least there is then some idea of what makes a player notable, rather than just another player.Dr Zen 01:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree as I stated above that hard rules are not the answer, but there still must be some degree of control. It may be that the community will decide Aloma is notable enough and that is fine, but what about Van Snider (19 games over two years), Scott May (5 games in two years), or Claude Elliot (22 games over two years), just to name a few among hundreds. There may not have been all that many baseball players, but that still leaves several thousand of them, not all of which have done anything notable. Aloma may be ok in the end, I just do not know, but the answer to "it is hard to have good standards" is certainly not "let us therefore include everybody." Indrian 19:47, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete! Insignificant and unencyclopedic. gK 08:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep--Seems like this guy is notable enuf. As for where to set the bar, I'm not sure, but even playing one game in the major leagues is a pretty remarkable achievement: It was surprisingly hard to find good, recent numbers, but apparently in 1996 there were about 5 million participants in youth baseball in the US. Little League only accounts for about half that, so I'd guess the rest play for secondary school teams. Only about 9500 make the cut to be on a college team roster, and only 900 are on a major league active roster during any given week during the regular season, which means pro baseball players make up only .018% of the original pool. Niteowlneils 22:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Strong keep. -- Radman1 16:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you mind in the interest of the excellent debate that is proceeding on this page tell us why you feel so strongly? It is no problem if you do not care to elabroate, it is just that someone who seems to have such strong feelings could really contribute a lot. Indrian 16:39, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Apparently he is only notable for having been in the major league, and was not notable within that sphere. Merge his name and stats to a comprehensive article and redirect. If there is no such article, and none is created, delete. -- WOT 17:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 00:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Stil Delete - According to baseball-reference.com Luis Aloma Barba (aka Witto) has an Overall Rank of 1579. Unless he has done something notable such as a win or a tragic error in an important game, or even just has a rare baseball card, he isn't Wikipedia material. [[:Category:Major league pitchers] currently only has 129 articles, including Mr. Aloma, but mostly people who really deserve to be there, such as Sandy Koufax [2]. gK 05:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I must admit: I'm continually confused as to why keeping this article harms Wikipedia. The vehemence with which people argue seems to suggest they see some damage, but I miss it completely. I wish someone would explain this--it feels like people with different ideas talk past each other on vfd. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:21, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

A tricky question to answer, but one I will take a stab at. I think a good place to start is Geogre's user page which explains this in part, but all of his points may not apply here. In this case, of course, I am trying not to be overly judgemental as in the schools debate that is spiraling around and around. My view is that the Witto Aloma article taking solely by itself with no other considerations is probably not notable enough, but I would not feel greatly cheated if it were to stay. The article, as you pointed out, is harmless in and of itself. However, if we allow every article to survive just based on whether it individually harms wikipedia or not, then a greater harm will result in the end because there are now hundreds, even thousands, of articles that do not seem particularly useful that are now dominating the site. Eventually, the important articles will be buried under minutae. Sure, there is a search engine and one need not navigate a table of contents, but the total integrety of the project is weakend when new users discover the place and give it a cursory glance to see if it is a worthy source and all they manage to find is this minutae. This is my personal reason for searching out these kinds of articles. Indrian 16:20, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Indrian, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but can you articulate why having even thousands of articles about baseball players would harm Wikipedia? It does seem to me that the argument is reducing to something like "I don't think an encyclopaedia should include everything" without any real explanation of why not (or of what it should include and why) and conversely the inclusionists' argument seems to boil down to "We should keep everything" with equally little argument for their view. Given that this is not a book and does not as such have a contents page and that views of what is "notable" will necessarily vary from one to another (but of course might centre round a consensus), where is the harm in it? Dr Zen 00:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indrian, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but can you articulate why having even thousands of articles about baseball players would harm Wikipedia? It does seem to me that the argument is reducing to something like "I don't think an encyclopaedia should include everything" without any real explanation of why not (or of what it should include and why) and conversely the inclusionists' argument seems to boil down to "We should keep everything" with equally little argument for their view. Given that this is not a book and does not as such have a contents page and that views of what is "notable" will necessarily vary from one to another (but of course might centre round a consensus), where is the harm in it? Dr Zen 00:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Listen, I understand your arguement that their is space for a lot of things and that the good is not harmed if some stuff slips through. It is a well-reasoned and thought out position and I see no reason to attack it; it is enough to say that I disagree. My arguement is listed above, but since you failed to see it I will try to distill it even more. The prime goal of any encyclopedia regardless of content is to be a source of reference for the masses; i.e to be used. An encyclopedia that keeps to a high standard, whether in article content or in article selectivity, is more likely to be deemed useful by those who discover it. Therefore, it is important to be selective, though we can still include far more than a print encyclopedia can. The harm that could result from including thousands of articles on relatively trivial topics is that potential users will see these articles and dismiss the project out of hand, not getting a chance to see the many excellent pages we have to offer. I do not claim to know what the standard should be; I can only follow what I think is right and see what the community thinks. If the community disagrees, I will continue to work on what interests me and let others work on what interests them. I hope that helped you understand; you do not have to agree. Indrian 02:02, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Where Witto Aloma really needs to go is in an article on Cuban baseball players, then you might have an article that was truely useful and informative rather than a stub that was just the very basic facts that could be found elsewhere on the internet. I assume that he is one of the very early players from Cuban, and the story of how he ended up playing baseball might be an interesting one. If someone could find that information, then I think that Witto Aloma deserves his own article rather than as just part of a large article. gK 02:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • FYI: It turns out my assumption was incorrect. There has been a long history of Cubans in Baseball's Major Leagues, with the first Cubans debuting in 1910. [3] Although Cubans would play in both the Major Leagues and Negro Leagues, it would take until 1947 for Jackie Robinson to debut. Even on a website devoted to Cuban Baseball Witto Aloma rates only the briefest of mentions. [4]
  • Maybe Witto Aloma does rate a mention in the Wikipedia, although from the stub, you'd never know it. He is only the second pitcher in the 20th century century to throw a shutout in his only start. [5] Although this picture is probably copywrited, I wonder if we could claim "fair use" and use it in the Wikipedia. [6]
• Keep. Keep all major-league baseball players. As for the examples cited by Dr Zen, both are merely proposed for deletion. I doubt that the band will be deleted. As for the law school dean, probably more general readers care about a baseball player than about the dean (i.e., most people who'd want to read about the dean are with that school and could go to its website). Even so, I'd vote to keep an article about a dean that had significant informaton about him or her. JamesMLane 04:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you for keeping all Premiership footballers too? Or is your belief that because more Americans use the Internet than any other nationality, Wikipedia should carry much more American-centred content? Dr Zen 02:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In baseball, I'd keep all major-league players, but not most of the minor-league players. A quick glance at FA Premier League leads me to believe that "Premiership footballers" are equivalent to the former. If that's correct, then I'd keep any such article. JamesMLane 03:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, at least you're fair. Now, a further question. Would you extend this to the top-league handballers? Jai alai players? Or would you be wanting to separate "major" sports from "minor" ones? Is there a danger of losing NPOV if you decide a particular sport is too minor to have all its participants listed? Just questions. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong.Dr Zen 23:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That occurred to me. My first reaction is to say that if people can't make a living by playing a particular sport, then it's a minor sport. If the players at the top level of the sport of X are full-time professionals, that's an objective indication of enough public interest in what they do. Note that I said "make a living by playing". A country club's full-time golf pro isn't thereby notable.

I don't know much about handball. If the players are "gentleman amateurs" who have to hold down other jobs (including jobs in the field, like coaching or whatever), then I'd say only the most notable players merit articles.

This suggested criterion treats the flow of money (ultimately derived from fans) as an indication of the extent of interest in a sport. It might need modification for sports that afford a living because of wealthy sponsors rather than fan support. JamesMLane 01:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise Major League Soccer would be out. It's largely funded not by fans but by owners (if it relied on fans it would be bust!). The big problem with your criterion remains this: a squad player at West Bromwich Albion (a lowly Premiership side) or, worse, at Bodo Glimt or CSKA Moskva would be notable, even though most fans of the sport would not know who they are, while players in sports such as jai alai that are not professionalised, who are well known within that sport, would not. I am guessing you're an American, because the distinction there makes a lot of sense, but for me, it's more tricky. English cricketers usually have second jobs, and yet, is the captain of Sussex less notable than some guy who warms the bench for, say, Bradford, who were once a Premiership team?

So far as I know, handball has plenty of professional players. It's very popular in continental Europe. But I couldn't say for sure. I suppose it can be judged because the pages for handball players would be quite likely to find their way onto VfD and their authors could be asked to supply details of their notability. But the problem remains that without a standard, there's a question of editors' saying "well, I've never heard of the guy and he doesn't sound very notable to me".Dr Zen 02:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- I wouldn't exclude all players of "minor" sports (however that be defined). I meant only that there'd be an automatic keep for every article about a player in the highest league of a major sport. Here in the U.S. at least, there are obsessed fans who would indeed know or want to know about some guy who warms the bench for a major league baseball team. I'm guessing there are Premiership fans like that. That's why I'd allow all those articles. Even if cricket doesn't merit that kind of blanket inclusion, the captain of a "major league" cricket team might well qualify. JamesMLane 03:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺|Talk 17:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)