Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Notability

General

A general thought that didn't fit elsewhere: I've always felt the northern tilt of Wikipedia's editor base has given our project undue problems. The fact that a disproportionate group of influential Wikipedians comes from DC north and Ohio east (i.e.- states where the sport receives less coverage) means that our project's arguments get short-shrifted in a way they wouldn't be if the country were more equally represented. A near-exclusively northern sport like college hockey, even though it's a smaller sport than ours by nearly every metric, has comprehensive coverage of programs, coaches, venues, etc. Articles that deal with the worst of the worst that play in high school rinks don't have their notability questioned, whereas we [often|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulldog_Park&action=edit&redlink=1] get flak. I know it's not a perfect comparison, and I'm not trying to discredit any argument against our pages' notability, but I've always felt this was the case. I'm happy to explain/defend this more if anyone disagrees. Kithira (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Programs

The project has thus far been seemingly operating under the presumption that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. I don't really see any reason to expand that beyond Division I. If anything, there's probably a stronger argument that only major conference teams and some more prominent teams from minor conferences are the ones one's notable. That said, my vote would be that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. Mizzou415 (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in the belief that all Division I programs are notable. I wouldn't dismiss Division II programs, for example, out of hand, but I think it is a high bar for them to meet. A few of the perennial D2 CWS programs might meet GNG and thus merit a page. I'd rather see all Division I programs with a well-written page before we go down that path, though. Billcasey905 (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that all NCAA Division I teams are definitely notable. Beyond that, when talking about sub-NCAA D-I teams, I think that they can be best covered as a section of the main athletics program article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with all Division I's here (notwithstanding how important it is to take cases individually). It's tough to voice this argument, since I've always presumed it, but factors such as college baseball's historical significance, the revenue it makes nationally today, etc. all lead me towards it. Add that the the robust independent coverage it receives throughout the U.S., and you've got my presumption of notability for all Division I programs. To me, this presumption is helpful as a solution to notability problems elsewhere. If the notability of a coach or venue is challenged, having a substantial section on the program page seems like a reasonable compromise. Kithira (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single seasons

There seems to be a consensus that National Championship teams are notable (Talk:2003_Rice_Owls_baseball_team#Notability).

After that, the line gets a little blurry. Are all College World Series teams notable?

There was a prior discussion that even resulted in a conclusion that all major conference championship teams are notable (Talk:Missouri_Tigers_baseball#Merger_proposal) but there wasn't a ton of discussion there.

What about a single-season of a prominent program that failed to win its conference or advance to the College World Series, such as 2014 South Carolina Gamecocks baseball team?

Mizzou415 (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD that resulted in an agreement that CWS appearances were notable, and I've been operating under that assumption since then. I agree that beyond this point, it gets blurry. Programs like South Carolina (and indeed, the entire SEC, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Big West) are covered sufficiently by multiple, independent media outlets to meet GNG, in my opinion, but I'm not sure how far back we can make that case. Independent, national college baseball coverage seems to have proliferated in the past 10-12 years, but beyond that it is much harder to find.

A few other leagues, like the Sun Belt, CAA, SoCon, A-Sun, MVC, and WCC seem to have their moments in the sun every few years also, with significant coverage.

My feeling right now is that CWS seasons are inherently notable, but other individual team seasons will need to demonstrate compliance with GNG. This should allow those that do receive the regular, independent coverage to still create pages. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that AfD result, referenced by Billcasey above, it would certainly appear that we can't automatically assume notability for individual, single season baseball articles (even conference-championship winning and NCAA tournament appearance ones) like we do with football and men's basketball. Yet, especially over the past year or so, we've seen people doing exactly that, and thus we keep winding up with more and more articles like this, and this, and this, and this. Based on that prior AfD result, all of these articles (and there are a whole lot more like them out there) would be nearly impossible to defend if they were taken to AfD. Rather than sitting on a ticking time bomb, and then having to deal with possible mass AfD's at some point in the future, I would suggest that we take a pre-emptive strike against possible future AfD's. It is a well established policy per WP:NSEASONS, that, and I quote, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article." I would recommend that we create decade-long list articles for every team that currently has single season articles (e.g. UMass Minutemen baseball, 2010–19). See list articles in other sports like Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1990–99 for examples of how this can be done. I would suggest that all single season baseball articles be automatically listified in a manner such as this. Then, later on, if the team reaches some consensus-established marker (and I agree with Billcasey that making it to the CWS would be a good place to draw the line), we can then presume individual season notability and split the article out into it's own stand-alone single season article. I think a guideline such as this one could establish a firm policy (based on existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines) on how to deal with the notability issue for season articles, and ultimately end up saving the project a whole lot of grief and time wasted in the future. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that grouping seasons by decade is probably the way to go for non-College World Series seasons. Mizzou415 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It might be best to start with a list of seasons page even before the decade pages. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, guys, I pinged the College softball project about this discussion, as I believe that many of the issues being discussed here (particularly relating to programs, seasons, and venues) could also be considered applicable to college softball as well. Also, you might want to consider individually pinging the editors who are creating these baseball season articles about this discussion, as I believe that the vast majority of these baseball single season articles have been created by one or two of the same editors. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my area of expertise, so I'll defer to people here. In general, though, I like the decade grouping for non-CWS seasons. When it comes to mid-majors and low-majors, especially, I think any single-season page contradicts WP:Discriminate, especially when there's little to no prose included in an article. Kithira (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started creating a decade-grouping just so we have an idea of what it would look like. See Missouri_Tigers_baseball_2000–09. Mizzou415 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a related note, based on what we've discussed here, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Players

I don't think there's any doubt that members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame.

I think there is also a clear consensus that any player who wins a national player of the year award, such as the Dick Howser Trophy or Golden Spikes Award is notable. What about the Brooks Wallace Award, which used to be a player of the year award but is now limited to shortstops?

I think we also previously came to a consensus, though there was a great deal of dissension as I recall, that Consensus All-Americans are notable. Is that where we draw the line?

Mizzou415 (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, though I'm not sure we'll be able to stop the runaway train that's gaining speed here. Prospect/draft types are starting to make pages for players who haven't done much at the amateur level and have yet to play minor league baseball. Sean Newcomb is just one example I've come across, and it's far from being the worst. These articles draw on draft coverage where writers go to ridiculous lengths of hype to outdo one another and get attention for themselves. I think we're a long way off from college baseball being big enough for anything other than HOF inductees/major award winners/consensus AA's being notable in the absence of a professional career. Kithira (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Coaches

The College Football project has decided that all head coaches at notable programs are themselves notable. Were we to do the same, all current or former coaches of NCAA Division I teams would be considered notable. I'm not sure if college baseball gets quite enough coverage for every coach at minor programs in minor conferences to be notable but perhaps it does. Mizzou415 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all current Division I coaches are notable, given the wide coverage of baseball today. Similar to above, though, I'm not sure how far back to take this. Certainly no further back than 1947 (first CWS). Before that, though, many baseball coaches were also serving as football and/or basketball coaches and may be notable based on that. I think we can justify the inherent notability of a Division I baseball head coaches since 2000, but the gray area is those who served between 1947 and 2000. Unless we can demonstrate that coaches had enough coverage outside of their school websites before 2000, I'm inclined to simply require GNG for those. Many could well meet this standard, but coaches who served at smaller programs or for short tenures may not. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reservations on historic coaches, I definitely need multiple NCAATs there. I could go for the all current argument, though it's my personal preference to wait for an NCAAT or two for low-major coaches. It's just so tough to find media coverage for MEAC/SWAC/NEC-level coaches who haven't had much success. Kithira (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venues

I think it's reasonable that the current venue for every NCAA Division I team is notable. For former venues, probably not except for the most notable programs or venues that are historical for some other reason. Mizzou415 (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I know of a couple cases where NCAA D-I venues have been challenged at AfD, and every one that I'm aware of resulted in a "Keep" decision. At this point, I think it's reasonable to assume that current NCAA D-I venues are notable. As for past venues, it's probably best that we go ahead and use GNG (and common sense) when creating articles for them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though Bulldog Park (Butler) was successfully challenged a while back. It can sometimes be tough to cobble together the sources for GNG with low-major teams (I'm thinking MEAC/SWAC/NEC), so I'm more willing to compromise there than I used to be. Kithira (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]