Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddux (statistic)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Maddux (statistic)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maddux_(statistic) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Maddux (statistic)}})

Not a notable neologism. I've seen some baseball people talk about this made up statistic, and it just doesn't meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep It might pass WP:GNG. It's on the official MLB glossary - maybe this pulls from somewhere else or is a wiki, but I doubt it - and there are articles like [https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/introducing-the-maddux/] and [https://sabr.org/latest/kepner-sabr-member-jason-lukehart-credited-creator-maddux-statistic] (which links to [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/sports/baseball/pitcher-serves-his-country-then-aids-cardinals.html?ref=baseball] but I can't read it). SportingFlyer T·C 04:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The Times devotes about 8 paragraphs to it. I think a lot of these sports neologisms are annoying, but for better or worse many catch on and are covered, and used, in RS. Caro7200 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• As the creator of the article I will admit I thought it was notable when I made it and notable now. I will concede it doesn't have the strongest case for notability but since notability is, for this purpose, binary I think it's enough to be kept. My thinking at the time reflected the kind of sources SportingFlyer found - that NBC Sports article led me back to the blog which is sourced as a reference. I will say that I looked into the MLB glossary prior to creation and as far as I can tell it is created by MLB writers and is not a wiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shutouts in baseball. That page is plenty long right now, but there's enough room for another table. If this belongs anywhere, it belongs there. --Lockley (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.