Talk:Rubén Rivera

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Baserunning incident

Just curious...I don't want to get involved with the normal elitist Wikipedia politics garbage, but why was the section regarding his baserunning incident removed? Most people that are coming here are probably looking for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.224.216 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because all of it is unsourced and judgmental, avoiding any neutral point of view or encyclopedic value. I'm sorry that striving for unbiased accuracy is too "elitist policial garbage" for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the previous guy -- the baserunning incident is key to this guy's bio. Figure out a way to say it nonbiased, I guess. It's that and stealing Jete's glove -- that's this guy's entire life. He's pretty noteworthy for those two reasons, compared to similarly bad ex-MLBers of the same years. Vegaswiki (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To include it, it would need a reliable source that establishes it as a notable incident. I'm unconvinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't he get cut from the Giants shortly after the incident? Doesn't that make it relevant to his career? What would it take to put it back in, a link to a news article? That's not hard to find.

Seriously, though, the only two things anyone remembers about Rivera are stealing Derek Jeter's glove, and that weird baserunning play. Why are you so determined to keep deleting something that everyone else wants to see? Hatster301 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have policies at Wikipedia, specifically regarding the need for reliable sources and ensuring no undue weight for any event. If you can provide references that suggest any importance for this event, it can be included. I've said that from the start. Nobody has produced that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites, articles, and videos that detail the incident and it's noteworthiness. This guy is only noteworthy for those 2 incidents, otherwise his bio should be two sentences. Stuff like this causes people to distrust Wikipedia -- actually important information is excluded because it doesn't fit a literal defition [from a nonexpert user]according to some 21-year old living in his mom's basement who spends 14 hours a day editing Wikipedia, but actually knows nothing about the topic. Vegaswiki (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, now what's the problem? I provided no less than four reliable sources establishing the notability of the baserunning incident, including being #9 on Bleacher Report's 25 Biggest Screw-ups in Baseball History (Bill Buckner was #1). You now have the "references that suggest any importance for this event" that you asked for, so why are you still trying to keep it out of the article? -- Hatster301 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So Bleacher Report ranks it as the 9th biggest "screw-up"? What does that mean? Bleacher Report as a source is pretty suspect on its best days, so there's that. Why focus on this when you could pick up on #'s 2 through 8? How notable could this be if the best evidence you can point to is Bleacher Report ranking it 9th, as opposed to the Bill Buckner situation, which would cause millions of Google hits? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report gets 13 million unique visitors per month, and is the 4th most popular sports website behind ESPN, Yahoo Sports, and CBS Sports. Why don't I focus on #'s 2 through 8? Because each and every one of them is already included the associated Wikipedia article. The only play in the top 10 that's not in Wikipedia is the Ruben Rivera play, and that's only because you keep removing it. And finally, a Google search for "bill buckner world series error" returns 71,600 results, not "millions". FYI, a search for "ruben rivera baserunning error" returns 91,300. -- Hatster301 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, because they accept content from its readers. Also, WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. If Buckner does indeed get that few hits, it's because it was before the internet age. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The baserunning incident absolutely defines Ruben Rivera's career. Omitting the incident is like excluding Watergate from the Richard Nixon article. It may not be incredibly important on a global scale, but there is nothing more significant in the scope of this player's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicklegends (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not this again. Prove to the community that this is Rivera's Watergate. I would think stealing Jeter's glove was his Watergate, but whatever. That was significant because it resulted in his release. What did his baserunning mistake result in other than an out? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was the last major league game he ever played. The Giants released him in disgust and he never made it back to the majors. Nicklegends (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The gaffe was May 27, and he played on May 28. Demonstrate that that's why he was released, and then we have something. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

He played for one inning on May 28, and was released less than a week later on June 3, without a single at-bat during that span. The Baltimore Sun would seem to agree that the baserunning play was part of the reason for his release:

"He appeared in 31 games with the Giants this year, batting .180 with two homers and four RBIs and gaining unwanted attention for a base-running snafu that was replayed many times on SportsCenter." Hatster301 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you've apparently run out of excuses to keep deleting the baserunning incident, and every one of your excuses has been shown to be either baseless, dubious, or outright false, I'm going ahead and restoring it. The excuses you have provided so far are listed below:

"It's not notable"

This is ridiculous. Numerous reliable sources have been provided, including ESPN, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and Deadspin.com, referencing the play days, months, even years after it happened. The incident's notability isn't even remotely in question; removing it on the basis of lack of notability is absurd.

"It's not relevant, because it didn't affect his career"

This is silly. He was released from the team only a week after the play, with no at-bats in between, just two months into the season. The source I provided (which you seem to be ignoring) from the Baltimore Sun concurs that the incident was part of the reason he lost his job (although his .180 batting average obviously didn't help).

"There's no consensus to keep it in"

27 different editors have revised or added onto the baserunning section over the years, including 7 who have tried to restore it after you deleted it. Compared to only two editors that have removed it, it's plainly clear that the WP community overwhelmingly wants the incident to be included in the article. Moreover, 4 out of 4 people on this talk page not named Muboshgu take exception to your efforts to keep it out. I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, when 93% of the article editors and 100% of the talk page editors agree on something, then that's a consensus if there ever was one.

"The consensus is for me to keep deleting it, so that it stays out of the article"

How is there is a consensus for you to remove it, when you have zero support on the talk page? Your logic is truly baffling.

"It's not as notable as Bill Buckner's error, because a Google search for the Buckner play would return millions of hits"

When I pointed out to you that a Google search for Bill Buckner's error returned thousands, not "millions" of hits, and that the number of hits was comparable to Rivera's miscue, you suddenly reversed course and claimed that Google hits was "not a valid argument." If it wasn't a valid argument, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

In summary, the following are reasons to include the baserunning incident in the article:

1) It's notable, as evidenced by the plethora of reliable sources

2) It's relevant, as evidenced by the fact that he was fired not long afterwards

3) It's supported by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community

And the list of reasons against including it are as follows:

1) Muboshgu doesn't want to

Thus, I'm putting in back in. I'll kindly ask you to refrain from deleting it again if you have not established a consensus on this talk page, and especially if you cannot get one single editor to voice their agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. --Hatster301 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)