Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Baseball. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Baseball|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Baseball. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Many of the baseball-related deletion discussions center on questions of notability. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability (WP:BASE/N) may be helpful.

Baseball

Articles for deletion

Launch angle


Launch angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose draftifying because the current article reads like a dictionary and as it pertains to fiberoptics and electromagnetics, it appears non-notable and only cites one source. However, I think as it pertains to sports such as golf and baseball it may actually be notable, though it will need work which I can take care of. This is also what the majority of the online articles referencing launch angles are talking about. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: My first instinct is that it looks like a DAB page. WP:DAB says [...] there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. I did find a few academic papers (and the Standard cited on the page, of course) using the term in the optics context, so it's not unreasonable that a person can search for them.
Maybe we can fold the current three sentences about optics into their respective articles and link to those sections, then also link to a Launch angle (sport) or Launch angle (projectile motion) page of sorts. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
That's a good point, although it'd be good have some more secondary sources if possible. I'll support that as long as the sourcing is adequate for a separate article. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
A properly dab-ified version of this page could link to Glossary of baseball terms#launch angle, at least for now - I haven't thought about it before, but I'd guess there would be enough sourcing out there for someone to write a full article on it, or at least an expanded section in Statcast. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps for now we redirect to the glossary, and maybe get a Launch angle (projectile motion) started rotting in Draft namespace, and if it gets up to publishable, we turn the redirect into a DAB. With regards to putting that sourcing somewhere, we could write an expanded section of Statcast (and if it gets too big we split it off), but I'm worried that would fit in awkwardly with the current article layout. If we can't figure out where it'd go, we could draftify that too, perhaps. I also think if the sourcing is sparser than I hope (which, alas, seems to be the case often), I could still thicken out that definition in the glossary a little, because it's looking short even with regards to other entries on the page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Can this not be solved by simply adding that sourcing and definition to the optics page? I'll admit I haven't actually looked past the page / proposal, the former of which appears pretty cleanly to have been intended as a DAB, but if the sourcing is correct then it's an extremely simple fix, so I don't see why we're looking at deletion as a necessary failsafe.
CSGinger14 (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
It wasn't intended as anything. In the early days of Wikipedia editors imported a public domain telecommunications glossary (it's referenced at the bottom of the article). This gave us a jump start on article creation: a couple thousand stub articles that hyperlinked to each other. Over time most of those stubs were either expanded or merged. This one didn't go anywhere, partly because there are several different definitions of the term. --Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about what to do.--Srleffler (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Same honestly. Technically, per WP:SPEEDY, if we consider it a DAB, it should be redirected to the sports term glossary. However, I agree with Kelob2678 it doesn't really qualify as the primary topic. Is it possible we could merge the optics section into another article (e.x Glossary of physics, however that glossary currently only contains other articles) and then make it a working DAB? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Templates for discussion

Categories for discussion

Requested moves