Deletion of List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable (3rd nomination)

Comment: Plenty of reliable sources describe these records specifically as unbreakable, so this clearly passes , for starters.  Not liking the article is not a justification for deletion.  As for , I fail to see in what way that would apply to this article.  It's not an indiscriminate, sprawling list of statistics; with less than twenty total items, it's a very precisely focused list of the handful of records that sources describe as unbreakable. There's also no original research involved in presenting the information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: After consideration, I can't come up with any way in which this list violates the sections of  that Nathan cited above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Records are only highly unlikely to be broken given current conditions; however, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. As I recall, both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus have written about how records like 300 wins may become approachable again in the future. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of |non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. For example, the difficulty in breaking the career MLB record for wins is best described in the article on Win_(baseball)|wins, which already has discussion of the changing demands on starting pitchers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: Nominator's personal opposition is based on emotion rather than rationale; that's the worst reason to delete an article.  For all those arguing |original research, please!  63 refs from a variety of reliable sources and you're still labeling this OR?  Not to mention that this was debated just three months ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I nominated this for deletion the first time, changed my mind for the second, and this y "" deletion nomination (see, I can throw around guidelines too) isn't swaying me back for the flip-flop-flip. Based on the amount of discussion "unbreakable" records get, even if there is no one objective standard for what constitutes "unbreakable", this is a notable subject worthy of an article. The article still needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per my reasoning in the second AFD, in the end of the day this is simply |original research, with the GNG arguement faulty at best (what makes Life Magazine, etc a reliable source on this topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)