Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame

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 keep. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame

List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While interesting, I'm not sure of the need for this list. We already have List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame which notes nearly all this information. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment as a list away from the club article it probably helps things to have articles like this in many ways, on the grounds that it limits the length of the club article but is easier to use than the whole list of HoF members. I can see that it may not be notable, and it may be easier to simply direct people to an external site with this detail on. In that case I'd opt for delete, otherwise probable keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a perfect example of a "good list." It contains useful information that would otherwise clog down a main page on a team. The list is finite, it is verifiable, it is rationally constructed. The page serves a useful function as a navigational device, providing in-links for less-well-known greats of team history. Bravo. Carrite (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, I see that the in-links are not fleshed out. They need to be. Have at it, baseball folk. Carrite (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I just linked all the names even though I am not a baseball "folk".--Cheetah (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - It doesn't quite overlap the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, since that article only lists the team that the player is listed as in the HOF, not all the teams he played for. This article also provides scope to expand beyond the information that is already in this article as it relates to the Dodgers in the Hall of Fame. And, unlike some of the other lists that have been AfDed recently, this topic has explicit, significant coverage in secondary sources, e.g., [1]. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Carrite and Rlendog. Useful adjunct to main article. Wikilinks do need to be finished.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - As pointed out by Rlendog, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame only lists the team which the player was inducted under. For example, Dave Bancroft, the very first player listed in List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame was inducted as a Philadelphia Philly. As such this list provides alternate, non-overlapping information from the full list. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Just as a note, the name of the list is misleading, as the majority of the players on it played for the Brooklyn Dodgers, not the Los Angeles Dodgers. They never set foot in the state of California, and as such should be removed, unless the title is changed to List of Players for the Los Angeles Dodgers Franchise in the Baseball Hall of Fame or something along those lines. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A long enough list to warrant a separate article and it does give info not in the main list. BUC (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I've been thinking about this one since I saw it nominated. My question... what is there to indicate that there is any independent notability for being a HOFer with an association with the Dodgers organization? Are we just making a list by parsing two separate conditions (in this case, HOF + at least some tangible association with the Dodgers organization). I mean, this list isn't talking about players inducted as Dodgers, which is fully covered by List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. But is it really important that say, Gary Carter, a HOF catcher primarily for the Expos and Mets, spent a year in Los Angeles in his twilight? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Dodgers themselves think this is an important aspect of their history, as they include it on their webpage, and independent sources like Baseball-Reference include this information as well. Of course, every team has its fairly trivial cases - Gary Carter would probably qualify in the case of the Dodgers, but he was not a trivial player for the Mets, yet he was not inducted as a Met. And while the Dodgers do pretty well in having their key Hall of Famers inducted as Dodgers, since executives aren't inducted by team, just using the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame would exclude such key Dodger figures as Walter O'Malley and Branch Rickey. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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.