Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article fails under no original research. This article seems to be comparing championships won by conference for the past 30 years, but I don't see any RS in the list of references that actually compare that. Most of the references are just general discussion about conferences as a whole. Natg 19 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another incomprehensible 'have to be an extreme fan of NCAA baseball' stat article with a bunch of non-sensical tables. The layman cannot navigate this article very easily. Nate • (chatter) 18:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally WP:RECENTISM. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will preface this by stating that if there is any specific material whose source is unreliable, or whose source does not support the entry, certainly that specific material and source could be removed without deleting the entire article.

There are some reliable sources, e.g., ncaa.com and fs.ncaa.org, showing the results of games. The tables themselves are not at the sources but the article simply lists multiple years in tables. I would think that is not original research. Since the tables are reverse chronology cumulative or cumulative for multiple teams, it does require simple counting and/or simple arithmetic operations. Again, I do not see how any of that is original research.

There are many similar examples of tables, that do not exist at a source, but contain factual information from sources that is combined into tables. Also, some tables that contain information from a table at a source, but also contain additional information, some of which may require simple arithmetic operations. 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament#Final_standings, 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament#Final_standings, College World Series#Most_CWS_wins, College World Series#Most_CWS_Finals_appearances, etc.

As far as having 'to be an extreme fan of NCAA baseball', there are many entries in Wikipedia that I am not an extreme fan of, that I am not a fan of at all, and have no interest in at all. I would not think that would be a reason to delete an article.

Looking at WP:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism, as long as it is kept up to date, however relevant the info is now, it will be just as relevant in 10 years and it seems obviously to not be a candidate for Wikinews. There are Wikipedia articles that are "recent", whether they, for example, just cover this year's baseball tournament, and ignore all previous years, or cover 6, 20 or 30 years and ignore all previous years. I don't believe preventing that is the intent of WP:Recentism.

Jay Jor (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the article falls under WP:SYN, which is part of the no original research guideline. Yes, results of games have RS, but I believe that the comparison of champions, conferences, etc., falls under the synthesis guideline. Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2019. (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There was no more intent, than there is in any of the other tables that I listed, to reach or imply any conclusion. To me it is just a list of factual information. However, it is probably immaterial since the consensus is obviously for deleting it, but thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. Jay Jor (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the conclusion that you think I was trying to reach or imply, other than just the facts given? Anything that has results by champions, conferences, etc., will unavoidable be a comparison. Obviously, if there is anything that is not factual, that part of the article could be deleted. Jay Jor (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is somebody's scratchpad and record-keeping to determine something, although I'm not even sure what that something is. The title of the article doesn't reflect the page content, which is nearly all jargon, and I suspect is even incomprehensible to those who religiously follow NCAA baseball and can't even be decoded by those who are smart enough to know sabermetrics. Furthermore, different tables cover different time periods, and the prose covers a time period different than any of the tables. The title says 'recent', which is vague. Whether or not the article is factual, accurate, or supported by references is not the point – the whole thing is plain confusing, will not be understood by more than 99.9% of Wikipedia's readership without an accompanying guide, and is not salvageable as a Wikipedia article. Ira Leviton (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any useful information that is deemed worthy could be moved to the College World Series main page. Dlambe3 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this should be at the College World Series main page, unless it were made into a complete history, instead of just a partial history, not a trivial task. The purpose this serves to me is to answer questions like, "have teams in the PAC won 3 of the previous 7 championships, more than any other conference," "what conference has the most champions and runner ups over some number of past seasons", "how have teams in conferences with the most participants finished relative to their seeding over recent seasons," etc. Jay Jor (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2019 (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.