Talk:History of the Los Angeles Dodgers

Merger proposal
I propose that Los Angeles Dodgers MLB takeover be merged here, as I don't think the takeover will ever have enough coverage to merit its own article. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  16:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) you could give me more than 5 minutes to start the article! sheesh! but,
 * 2) more importantly, there's plenty of coverage for an article. — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I read about the takeover myself. I'm not sure whether this is going to advance out of the territory of a one time event that was covered much around the time the news broke and then never again.  See WP:EVENT.  Based on my intuition about the likely coverage it will have (and not the current state of the article), I thought that it would not be able to support a full article.  Nevertheless, should enough coverage arise to allow for a standalone article, I would not have a problem with splitting off the section into a new article.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need it's own article... any relevant information can be included in this article, McCourts article and the season article.. The event by itself doesnt have enough information for its own page. Similar events, like the ones with the Expos and Rangers did not spin off into separate articles.  Spanneraol (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be correct, we'll see what happens. The (professional) editors of apparently every major newspaper in the US don't seem to agree, though. That may have something to do with how nobody seems to have expected this to happen, but who knows. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree: Since History of the Los Angeles Dodgers already is a separate article, it seems to me this event fits into it. The MLB merge article has to take information from the History article anyway to establish the context. There certainly will be some coverage, as a new owner is sought, but that should all fit into the History article. Group29 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time: This appears to be getting significant enough coverage for its own article.  Also, if I was merging, I'd merge to 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers season, not here  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Purpleback. It's an event notable to both the history and the season, anyway, and seems to have enough notable coverage.  Vaguely possible that this could be merged after all, but only in a year if things blow over in a very boring way and there's a clear and sensible location for the merge. SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There is enough information being put out that I think this could develop very well into a good article. By merging it with another article, you are going to either not have enough said, or make the new article extremely long. We should let it play out for at least a couple months, and if it seems like the coverage is dying off, we can look into merging it then. (talk) 15:18 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mannywood.jpg