Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/2004 American League Championship Series

If you have not already done so, please click here and add {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/2004 American League Championship Series}} at the top of the box. Thank you.
Click here to return to the main RfD page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. speedy kept based on changes and nominators withdraw James (T C) 02:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

2004 American League Championship Series[change source]

2004 American League Championship Series (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

† CR ₉₀ has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

Article is full of bias towards one team, badly formed format wise, overall not up to standards, I suggest deletion so it can be started from scratch.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

Weak delete: I'm guessing this was in response to my retagging of it a few minutes. Here's what I'm noticing...that article is considerably longer than its parent, American League Championship Series. Let's clean up the main ALCS article, at least include all the results of historical ALCSs, and then and only then should we be working on individual ALCS articles, probably starting with the most recent and working our way back Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly delete: When this page was first made, I thought of QDing it, but I wasn't sure what reason to do it for. Nicely put, and I think it would be much less confusing to simply start from scratch. Classical Esther 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need to keep it. It is far messed up. Not many links, needs to be wikified, and more then 1/2 the cats don't exist. Start from scratch. No doubt. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above.--Sinbad (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless somebody is willing to delete all of the text and start from scratch. I think it fails WP:NPOV--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major WP:NPOV fail. —§ stay (sic)! 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep All the reasons presented are reasons to clean up the article, not delete it. Either way (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but I find it a hindrance to keep it in this form.-- † CR ₉₀ 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do see Either Way's point, but I feel it would be easier to start from scratch. Megan|^talk_changes 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was one of the most famous and dramatic ALCS's ever, due to being the first 3-0 lead blown ever and the fact that the bloody sock has entered baseball lore. This article does need cleaning up, but if it gets trashed, people will be reluctant to start it over. Kansan (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually plan to start work on a better article ASAP because of what you pointed out.-- † CR ₉₀ 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's notable all right, but it seems biased. Really. Buggie111 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned this up and believe I have addressed all issues. Either way (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is now cleaned up. -DJSasso (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issue adressed, though will need expansion. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the article is cleaned up, no need for deletion. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 01:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article is cleaned up (thanks to Either Way), I say keep. However, it will still need a few references. Megan|^talk_changes 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Either way's improvements. Lauryn^☆ 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —§ stay (sic)! 12:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since 'tis now clean'd up. Classical Esther 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN-- † CR ₉₀ 02:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Sunday, 21 February 2010 at 7:03 am, although it may be closed more quickly due to WP:SNOW.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.