Not necessarily. I think those entries may well be misguided, even if properly sourced. I wanted to get your take on it (and do you plan to revert all 29 articles?) before I take it to the baseball project and get some opinions. My hunch is they won't be too keen on it. ← ' →  :::There are several issues. Putting aside whether the list article is notable, there's an inherent problem with the claim that there are only 29 players. You can certainly source that a particular player played for four decades, but it's logically much harder to claim these are the only ones. In addition, the list itself is relatively unsourced, and yet the claim in the Buckner article relies, implicitly, on the claim in the list article, which itself is unsourced and I suppose relies on the history in the Buckner article. It all seems problematic to me. I'd remove the claim from each individual article and then raise the issue of the list itself in the project.   ::::Another issue is that even if there are 29 at this moment, there could eventually be 30 or more, and then you have 29+ articles to change. I wonder if the guy is just excited over discovery this new (albeit somewhat artificial) fact, or if he's trying to promote a website. ← ' →  :::::What website would that be? He's a longtime editor of different kinds of articles. Looks like this article may have triggered his interest, but it doesn't look like he has any obvious association with the website (major site) or the article's author. Am I missing some linkage here?   :::::None that I've looked into. I'm just wondering what his sudden fascination is with this bit of trivia. If I get really desparate, I might ask him. ) ← '''' →   ==Strauss-Kahn==  