Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Championships of the New York Yankees

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Championships of the New York Yankees

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

List cruft, a reproduction of material from New York Yankees. Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also duplication of History of the New York Yankees. At best, merge into that article somehow. Wknight94 ^talk 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Move article to Template:New York Yankees start boxes (delete redirect), remove the non-succession box parts, then place it in {{Navboxes}} and add it to History of the New York Yankees as a navbox, just like {{Roger Federer start boxes}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of a template if it's only being transcluded in one place? Same for {{Roger Federer start boxes}}. Wknight94 ^talk 18:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be transcluded to New York Yankees too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems redundant. Although now I'm thinking of doing a similar article about the Cubs. Except it will be a lot shorter. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HA! That made me lol, thanks Bugs. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to read the information in this manner. Much easier than having to look through a long article of just text scattered about in many places to find the information. Dream Focus 04:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets what seem to be the emerging community standards for lists: Notable subject matter, coherent criteria for inclusion, sufficient content to make list treatment worthwhile, finite length I wish it were more finite than it is, ha ha., and usefulness as a navigational tool by providing bluelinks. Does it duplicate information found elsewhere? Possibly. Does it constitute a content fork for this reason? No, because the criteria for inclusion is specific and there is no interpretative apparatus that may evolve on a competing tangent. I hate the layout myself, but that doesn't matter five cents' worth... —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Should be retitled List of championships of the New York Yankees, I note. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

I renamed it List of championships won by the New York Yankees at 04:52, 7 October 2010. I also asked for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees. Dream Focus 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the succession boxes are useful navigational tool, no doubt, but do they need to be in a separate article? No, I don't think so. Thus, the best course of action here is to merge, either to New York Yankees or to History of the New York Yankees.—Chris!_c/t 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you fit something that large over there? It'd be a problem. This is a valid content fork. Dream Focus 15:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.