Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [1].

20–20–20 club[edit]

20–20–20 club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly (specifically after its peer review) and now meets FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my concern is the brevity of the list. Essentially it's a list of seven items - the additional info about the fourth 20 could be incorporated into the top table without too much difficulty. What's the current view on lists with fewer than 10 items.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that this list is rather short. But under this discussion, a FL should meet all 6 criteria (in this case criterion 3b). Nothing more. And as one user aptly put it, "If there was a minimum, that minimum would be spelled out in the criteria." Remember, it's quality over quantity. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the list is notable per WP:LISTN, the number should be irrelevant as the list is comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, it does fail 3b. There can be FLs with less than 10 items if those items have substantial information about themselves. All I see next to the items - statistical numbers. Besides, the title of the page is 20-20-20 club, but it has a section for 20-20-20-20 club as well. It looks confusing.
    My suggestion is to create a page titled "Baseball statistical clubs" or something more specific and have all these 20-20, 30-30, 40-40 clubs as sections in that page. It would be more convinient for readers to scroll thru these "clubs" than to click on each link and then go back and forth.--Cheetah (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned (and bolded) the 20–20–20–20 club in the lead and went into full detail into what it entails (as per the recent peer review feedback of this list). And merging this list into a "MLB Multiple Stats Club" page doesn't appear to be a viable option, as out of the 3 multiple stat clubs, only 30–30 and 40–40 could potentially be merged, as they are totally related to each other (home runs and stolen bases). 20–20–20 is the odd one out, so it would have to remain a standalone list. Is there anything else from the 6 FL criteria I can do to make this list better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list meets WP:LISTN for a standalone list. I don't see how merging is warranted or "more convenient" to combine multiple stand-alone topics.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is based on the following criterion: ...could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. I believe this list can be reasonably included as part of a related article; hence, I oppose.--Cheetah (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously stated, this list can't possibly be part of another related article. It's a completely unique, standalone list, as it entails doubles, triples and home runs. No other baseball stat club encompasses all three factors. As a result, merging it with other multiple stat club lists under one article would be completely nonsensical. Hence, your opposition to this list is baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doubles, triples and home runs - they're all statistical factors. It is very possible to add this as a separate section in a statistical list. This list is very specific and can possibly be a part of a broader list.--Cheetah (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This list is very specific" – that is precisely why it is a standalone list and thus, cannot be merged. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 save club, and 500 home run club are baseball FLs based on "statistical factors", so there is precedent that statistic clubs frequently mentioned in sources can be FLs. While the suggestion to merge is well-intentioned, IMO there is not much more to discuss about possibilities for mergers until anyone can identify and justify an existing list this should be merged to.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page is a better forum for proposing mergers (which I still do not support).—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing any mergers. I am opposing featuring this list because it fails criterion 3b.--Cheetah (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FLC, objections are expected to "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If you are not interested in gaining consensus on merging the content of this list, your opposition seems to be "I dont like it".—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:FL? say that reviewers have to be interested in addressing these rationales? I don't think so. I did provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. I don't have to be interested in addressing it, do I?--Cheetah (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who has never watched American football, I first thought that 20-20-20 is a perfect game, but after seeing the see also section I must agree that this is possibly not a very great achievement, so unfortunately I have to agree to merge this with the other tables. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More players have pitched a perfect game than have joined the 20–20–20 club. So I wouldn't be so swift as to label this "not a very great achievement." —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN only requires that the topic is mentioned in multiple sources. It does not restrict the percentile the achievement must rank relative to others.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bagumba
Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "most recent" can become dated ... use "last" instead.
  2. "Of these, five were left-handed batters, one was right-handed and one was a switch hitter": ref needed
    • Do you know any reliable source that lists out the handedness of every batter there has been. Because I don't want to have seven citations after this sentence by doing BR links to each player's page. If no such source exists, then can I just leave it be? Again, I understand Muboshgu stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but both the 3,000 hit club and 500 home run club FLs were able to be promoted unanimously without any citation regarding the handedness of batters. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You could bundle the citations. Thinking more about it, the handedness seems trivial and should be removed, and I dont think other baseball FLs do a similar breakdown.—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Other baseball FLs (i.e. 3000 hit club, 500 home run club, 3000 strikeout club) do have handedness. But rather than bundle the citations, I can model the format after the 3000 Ks article and simply state, "The only right-handed batter in this group is Willie Mays, while Jimmy Rollins is the only switch hitter." That way, only 2 players have to be cited. Is the wording good? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. The other players that weren't cited would not be verifiable that they were not right-handed also. Major League Baseball Triple Crown didnt mention handedness, so I wouldn't say it's a must either way. I'm personally of the thinking that if handedness was so important for a group, the stats would be published in a single-sentence already, and would not require original research to figure it out, not that I doubt you can't count.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled citations and kept the wording. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else might have another suggestion on how to bundle, but it works for me.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Two of these players (and one of the two active members of the 20–20–20 club) have played for only one major league team" ref needed
    This also seems trivial and removable–longevity with a team seems unrelated to a single year feat. But if it does stay, you might as well mention the two players—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you're right. It is trivial. I only placed it there in order to model it after the existing baseball FLs. But now that you remind me, 3000 hits with one team in a career is much more impressive than a 20–20–20 season with one team in a single season. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Frank Schulte, Jim Bottomley and Jimmy Rollins won the MVP Award in the same year as their 20–20–20 season." A better way to verify is to provide baseball-reference.com links to each player page, where year stats and MVP year can be verified.
  5. Footnote a, better to integrated into the body itself.
  6. "Both Mays and Rollins also reached the 30–30 club[a] in the same season" ref for Mays needed
  7. "Brett and Rollins collected more than 200 hits alongside achieving 20–20–20." again, refs to b-r.com pages for each player is better
  8. "Despite the difficulty of attaining the milestone, only three out of the five eligible club members have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and only two were elected on the first ballot": WP:EDITORIALIZING that they are deserving of HOF. Remove the "Despite ..." beginning.
  9. "Eligibility requires that a player has "been retired five seasons" or deceased for at least six months,[17] disqualifying two active players (Granderson and Rollins)." Undue implication that they would be deserving if they were eligible.
    • Done. Removed both players' names, but still mentioned them indirectly saying "disqualifying two active players who are members of the club." Would that be enough, or should the entire phrase be deleted instead? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole sentence seems undue and can be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Since tables are sorted by year, make it the first column.
    • I believe the focus should be more on the players who are part of the club, rather than the year they joined. I know Muboshgu stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but almost every baseball list on WP (FL or not) has the player's name in the first column, before the year, date or number of hits/Ks/Ws/HRs they amassed (even if the latter is used to sort the tables). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then sort on the player's names? I just think whatever is in the first column should be sorted. I dont have a strong preference what is in the first column. However, Major League Baseball Triple Crown has year 1st and is also sorted by year. Do you have other examples in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Multiple entries of "Reyes turning the triple into an art form" in citations
  12. Missing publisher in MLB.com, ESPN refs
  13. accessdate missing in some citation
  14. inconsistent date formats in citations (e.g. 2010-12-08)

—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done addressing all 14 comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my reported issues addressed. This is a notable standalone list per WP:LISTN based on reliable sources that discuss the grouping. It is complete to meet WP:FLCR. Baseball as a sport is largely based on statistics, and this grouping is a reflection of that interest. This list is a complete listing of players meeting the specific combination of statistics; their statistics are also listed as expected. Though small in number, merging with unrelated groups merely to enlarge the article of an already acceptable SAL makes no sense to me.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the discussion above I also support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I re-reviewed this list and couldn't find any mistakes. Well done!--GoPTCN 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose – Far be it for me to disagree with the majority, but I see Crzycheetah's point and am not inclined to dismiss it that easily. There is a distinction between meeting list notability standards and meeting FL standards, just as there is for regular articles and FA criteria. Criterion 3b legislates against lists that "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", and I see no reason why you couldn't combine these clubs with 30–30 club and 40–40 club to form List of Major League Baseball multiple stat clubs or something like that. In fact, the other clubs are far more notable than either of these; I see just as many sources about the 30–30 club here than about the clubs being discussed. I'll also add that I feel the content is rather thin in comparison to what a fully merged list would have, although maybe my standards are too high in that regard (that's the FAC reviewer in me coming out, I guess), and that the title implies that the list contains one club when it has two. That kind of works against an argument opposing a merger, doesn't it? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are asking for a new article, List of Major League Baseball multiple stat clubs, that is a list of lists. This can be mutually exclusive with 20–20–20 club existing. WP:SAL#Lists of lists allows a list of list articles, i.e. a list of links to other lists. WP:SALAT allows for related lists to be broken out when the list entries "have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link."—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can respect an opposing view such as Crzycheetah's, but it seems unfair that you seem to characterize the view as having been "dismiss[ed] ... easily". There was an extensive discussion in that thread based on guidelines and precedents to sufficiently reach a point of agreeing to disagree. Of course you or anyone are free to try to bring in new insights on that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Giants2008 stated, "the title implies that the list contains one club when it has two." The 20–20–20 club is the main club. The other one (20–20–20–20) is a "club within a club." They are not two separate clubs. One must be a member of the 20–20–20 club in order to be part of the latter group that encompasses just one more stat. Therefore, they are not mutually exclusive. I also agree with Bagumba with regards to your view that we "dismiss[ed Crzycheetah's point] easily." That's an unjustified stance that completely ignores all the successful rebuttals we made to his argument. I really don't see why anyone should be reigniting a debate that has been proven to be baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I wasn't saying you had dismissed anybody, and that wasn't my intention; I was merely saying that I saw the original reviewer's point. I think something in the comments above is accurate: we should agree to disagree and let the closer sort things out. I have my opinion, and others have theirs. Whether argument rebuttals were successful or not can be determined by the closer. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 3b. The point is that this list could reasonably be included as part of a related article even if such article may or may not exist. As Giants2008 said, there is a distinction between meeting notability standards and meeting the FL standards. As it stands, this list fails criterion 3b.—Chris!c/t 23:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory, I can see having a list of list articles, with a link to this article. I cannot see the benefit of combining the content of this FLC with unrelated lists merely because they seem related due to their use of statistics. Offhand, I'm not aware of reliable sources that refer to the collective stats groups as a whole to justify WP:LISTN for proposed list of lists. I think there is a disagreement in translating "reasonably" based on theory to "reasonably" based on actual sources.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally agree with Bagumba. Reviewers need to think about merging a unique list to something unrelated. This should stay as is. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also agree with Bagumba. This is the third time I've said it: No other baseball stat club encompasses doubles, triples and home runs. Only the 30–30 and 40–40 lists could potentially be merged, as they are totally related and relevant to each other (home runs and stolen bases). 20–20–20 is the odd one out, so it would have to remain a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having read the discussion above and consulted WP:LISTN, i'm supporting the list despite the small number of items. The aforementioned guideline stresses the need for multiple independent sources to back up the notability of the list, and in this case I believe there more than enough to warrant the list being on its own. Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - While I can understand the sentiment behind wanting to merge this short list with another, I haven't seen a credible suggestion for an appropriate (existing or hypthetical) list to merge this to, nor can I think of one myself. Hence, I believe this passes 3b, which seems to be the only remaining issue. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide specific action items for this article? Others have cited 3b earlier, but there wasn't any progress for lack of actionable objections.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when a list fails 3b, there isn't much that can be done, either it passes or it doesn't. Unless another couple players join the club soon, it won't make it there; it's the same reason List of Tampa Bay Rays managers will not be here anytime soon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of a minimum length requirement in WP:FLCR. If a reasonable article cannot be identified where this can be merged to, it's perplexing to me that this list meets stand alone notability standards, but nothing needs to be improved in its prose or structure—except wait for an arbitrary, non-deterministic number of players to meet the milestone to deem this list subjectively large enough for featured status.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look, I'm very much on the fence about this one. I'm not sure if it meets 3b or not. Then again, I'm damn sure List of New York Yankees captains meets 3b (List of Boston Red Sox captains is an FL), but I didn't get a full review on that because people said it failed 3b. Maybe I need more of an understanding of what meets 3b and what doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are questioning this article based on "other stuff exists", rather than a strong belief that this actually fails 3b? This is not surprising, as concerns with 3b has been debated in the past with no consensus, including Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_2#3b:_A_review and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_3#RfC_-_3.b_review. What I would like to see in this discussion (and FLCs in general) is
  1. Specific recommendations on how the list can be improved to meet 3b, beyond mere mention that it simply does not pass 3b. Concerns that the list "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" needs to have viable actionable alternatives. This is per WP:FLC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." (Text bolded as in WP:FLC, was not added by me).
  2. Continued discussion of recommendations to address 3b. I assume this is a discussion and not a vote? Reasonable objections to recommendations to merge the list should be responded to; otherwise, the opposing argument should be discounted. This ensures that opposition is not simply based on an arbitrary size quota. It needs to be demonstrated, not just merely stated, that the list can be reasonably merged. Assume good faith that it really is not clear how the proposed merge should look.
—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'm still smarting a little over the Yankees captains list. That said, while hitting 50 home runs in a season is a clear marker, and 30-30 seasons also are, I'm still not sure about 20-20-20. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:FLCR does not discriminate whether one list is "more notable" than another list, only that its criteria are met. Otherwise, maybe your nomination of "List of New York Yankees captains" was failed by Red Sox fans for the same reason :-)—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn those Red Sox fans... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brevity issues don't concern me since this list will never be a large one. I am unable to think of an article this list could reasonably be merged in to. That being said, I am unsure that this article is correctly formatted as a list. I feel that expansion could occur to make this an article on the 20-20-20 club. When was the 20-20-20 club first referenced? Is this an official club or does it exist only in rhetoric/in the media?  Ryan Vesey 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I remained on the fence about this one for a while, and I don't consider myself strongly in support, but based on reading the references, they all talk about players with 20-20-20-20, and seem to treat 20-20-20 as an afterthought. Only the Wertz source, the last one cited, seems to refer specifically to 20-20-20, and the url isn't working so I can't read it. I wanted to get behind this one, but I'm interpreting my reticence as opposition. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd imagine that has something to deal with recentism. The last two players since 1979 that have achieved 20-20-20, both in 2007, also achieved 20-20-20-20. WP articles tend to rely on online sources due to their availability, so its likely the online articles are mostly post-Internet and mostly deadline with 20-20-20-20. It would be strange if the 20-20-20-20 group was actually more notable than 20-20-20. Would you prefer a rename of the article if that was the case? At least getting more 20-20-20 sources is an actionable item. Time to dig out the microfiche.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that the URL isn't working for the Wertz source. It appears that, starting about a month ago, all Baseball Digest magazines that were once viewable on Google Books now result in 404 errors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a NYT source that mentions solely the 20–20–20 club. Will this by any chance change your position regarding the candidacy of this list? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also mentioned in a book. Other news sources include USA Today and UPI. These can be added to the article if there is demand, but I'd recommend to avoid WP:OVERCITE. I remain convinced 20-20-20 is notable. Are there any reasonable concerns that there are not more offline sources that exist on the topic?—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did google it and there seems to be more legitimacy for the 20-20 club than there is for the notability of the 20-20-20 club. Afro (Talk) 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20–20 club is completely unrelated. If you go to this article, it states that it encompasses 20 home runs and 20 stolen bases in one season (i.e. does not include doubles or triples as components to the club). The club that is being mentioned in that search is just a cheapened version of the 30–30 club and 40–40 club. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the point that they are completely unrelated but I don't think at present time the statistical club is notable enough on its own merits. Afro (Talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the number of sources with significant prose in the article, everyone has agreed that this is notable enought to meet WP:LISTN. Do you have a specific actionable item on a point failed in WP:FLCR?—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it fails 3b, I don't think the article is large enough to be classified as comprehensive. I also think it's just Routine coverage the same as you'd see for a few records which are listed on ATP World Tour records. Afro (Talk) 09:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any written WP rules stating how long an FL must be. The unwritten rule of thumb is 10 and this list has 11 (i.e. already satisfying this unwritten "rule"). I find it completely ludicrous that people have been claiming this list fails criterion 3b when it more than satisfies the stand alone and notability rules of WP. And the earlier proposal that this list be merged into a "Baseball statistical clubs" list has already been shot out of the water. All stat clubs have their own article, since they are completely mutually exclusive to each other. Try mixing in a doubles, triples, home run club (this club) with a home run and stolen bases club. It won't work, as you're combining completely unrelated stat clubs. The same person who came up with that idea even had the guile to say the proposed "Baseball statistical clubs" list should include the entire 30–30 club list (which has even more members than the FL 3,000 hit club). I didn't even bother responding—that's how silly the idea is. And if anyone else thinks about bringing up 3b as a reason to oppose, think again. It was already debunked a long ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [Removed off the cuff remark. Kinda lost my cool there. Sorry] —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simmer down a bit please, I'm sure the user who suggested it was merely acting in good faith, while I wouldn't suggest a baseball statistics article or something similar, I think reasonably it could be mixed in with the 40–40 club the article even says in the see also it's a similar multiple state club they're both roughly 15k (not that it matters) and the 50–50 club is already merged with the 40–40 club. Once again I also don't think this articles coverage extends past routine coverage. Afro (Talk) 10:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40–40 club is a statistical sub-category of the 20–20 club. As you earlier accepted the point that 20-20 was unrelated to 20-20-20, it would follow by the same logic that 40-40 is unrelated for merging purpose with 20-20-20. 40-40 was likely added into "See also" because 30-30 is mentioned in the body of 20-20-20. I have no opinion one way or another if it should stay in "See also", but I do not see a reason for merging of the unrelated articles.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the discussion is about whether the article could reasonably be merged into another "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I think they have similar stats the only difference is the 20-20-20 club encompasses more stats, half of the stats included can be related back to the 40-40 club, and I don't see how the coverage of this statistical club ranges from anything more than routine coverage. Afro (Talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific as to why you believe this is routine coverage. The feat has occurred fewer times than a no-hitter, amassing 500 HRs, etc. The article specifically mentions the importance of speed in obtaining a double and triple whereas the 30-30/40-40 clubs do not even record total of the two. My biggest question for this article is why does the title only refer to half of the content displayed in the article? Zepppep (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think like most long tennis matches like the recent semifinal at the Olympics it only receives coverage around the event and is thus included in an article with related content, to me it seems to fall along the lines of a sports score like that tennis match. Again I do understand the difference between the clubs, but the question is whether it could be reasonably merged with another article I think there is a case to be made that it could reasonably fit in, especially since they are both statistical batting clubs at the very least. Afro (Talk) 05:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Divisional playoffs, World Series, Super Bowls, etc. are all games that go way beyond a box score and thus, have articles about them. Games which have interesting feats or record-breaking moments rarely have an article to devoted to them (can't actually think of any for any sport). Games which are pre-planned would fall in line with routine but I'm still struggling to see how this feat, and thus article, would fall under that category. How often is the 300 win club thrown around? Seems to me 'bout every time a player nears it, or an injury seems to put a promising young pitcher's future in doubt of attaining that level of respect, or if a player on the fence re: HOF induction is trying to eke out a few more wins in hopes of reaching that no. And has been previously stated, since only 2 players have accomplished the feat since the advent of the internet, the number of mentions in the press (or at least accessible using online sources) is understandably severely limited. Merging, however, is an issue not specific to any one user and a different issue entirely. Zepppep (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is described as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Reaching 20-20-20 is not pre-ordained, and the sources that cover it are independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede the point that the low occurrence since the advent of the internet the mentions is low, the Semifinal at the Olympic Tennis wont get any coverage this week and may not for a long time unless its the odd mention because it was part of a sports match routine coverage and I feel its the same sort of coverage this statistical club gets, I'm not saying the club isn't notable enough for inclusion just its questionable whether it should stand on its own or whether it could be included as part of a wider base of statistics, this may be due to the lack of coverage since the accessibility of the internet occurred but there are plenty of tennis statistics which are seem as notable which do not have their own article. Afro (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make this WP:WABBITSEASON, but with the length of this FLC, my earlier comment from 00:13, 11 July 2012 may have been overlooked and seems applicable: "I cannot see the benefit of combining the content of this FLC with unrelated lists merely because they seem related due to their use of statistics. Offhand, I'm not aware of reliable sources that refer to the collective stats groups as a whole to justify WP:LISTN for proposed list of lists. I think there is a disagreement in translating 'reasonably' based on theory to 'reasonably' based on actual sources."—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Zepppep re:article title, 20-20-20 is the main subject of the article. 20-20-20-20 is a special case of 20-20-20, namely the additional stolen bases constraint. 20–20–20–20 club is a redirect to this article, and it is described and bolded in the lead per WP:R#PLA.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing the list be merged but if the question is as part of the criteria whether it could be reasonably merged as part of another article, I think a reasonable case can be made to suggest it could be. I'm going to Oppose the nomination because I think it fails 3b because it can reasonably be included with related articles. Afro (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided an actionable item. All you've done is subjectively interpreted criterion 3b in your opposition. So, please tell me which related article(s) can this list be included in? —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be listed as part of 40–40 club albeit with a few extra requirements or a batting statistic clubs. Afro (Talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you're asking me to create a "Baseball statistical clubs" list, right? I've already refuted the creation of that list above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See our featured lists of counties in Rhode Island and Hawaii, both of which comprise just five entries. Since they were considered long enough for FL, why should this list be considered too short? I'm not familiar enough with the FL process to make further comments. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opposition above seems to fall into two camps:
    1. The list is too short, which is not a criteria of WP:FLCR.
    2. The lists fails FLCR 3b with claims that it should be merged into another article; however, no viable existing list is proposed and any proposals for a new larger list are not demonstrated to be notable by sources that support WP:LISTN.
Nothing new is being discussed and this has been open for over a month. This list should either be promoted with the opposition dismissed as they are non-actionable and not based on guidelines, or it should be ruled no consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/20–20–20_club/archive1&oldid=1139991860"