Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the New Jersey Devils


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Flowerparty ■ 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

History of the New Jersey Devils
redundant copy from New Jersey Devils ccwaters 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination is premature at best, someone just created it with edit summary "Moving to separate article, will expand this article and trim main one to move towards FA status".  Gene Nygaard 14:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you put it that way, I'm just trying to save us the trouble of a merge request a few days from now. Find me any other sports team that has a standalone History article. ccwaters 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. I agree that there's no reason for a separate article.  Anything that might be here will obviously be in the Devils article. Bucketsofg 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The editors are trying to break up a large article into constituent parts, and this is a reasonable way to do it. Of course, this is assuming that the duplications which now exist between the two articles will be removed.  --Deville (Talk) 16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I'm the one who made this article, having split it off of the main page.  Several teams have a separate history page; Arsenal F.C., New England Patriots and IFK Goteborg are three examples of featured articles that use a separate history page to prevent overcrowding the main article.  Since I'm working on moving the Devils to potential FA status, I am using those two team articles that are already featured as templates.  I will trim the history on the main article to bring it in line with proper standards; conversely I will expand the history article to include things not noteworthy enough to make the main page.  Anthony Hit me up... 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Never noticed those before. The word count of the copy in History of the New England Patriots is roughly 8600 and the copy in the related section in New England Patriots is roughly 2000. The Patriots are a 46 yearold team. Compare that to the 1200 word count in the 24 yearold New Jersey Devils history. I could see such an article being warranted for an original six NHL franchise, but not such a relatively young team. ccwaters 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted they are a younger franchise, but they still have an extensive history, having been one of the most dominant and respected team of the last 10-15 years. As Gene Nygaard said above, I just created the article last night, and I haven't even had substantial time to work on either article yet.  Please give it some time before AfD is considered.  I understand your position, but let me flesh it out.  If you still think it's excessive, then AfD it in a few weeks.  But don't nip it in the bud before it has a chance to get going.  Even if the main Devils article doesn't reach full FA status (for one reason or another), it will still be a vast improvement over what is there now. Anthony Hit me up... 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Deville and Anthony Jcuk 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pe above. Although as a Sens fan, my POV vote would have to be 'Delete - nn' ;-) Bridesmill 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anthony, we can re-list on AfD or merge-tage in a while if the content doesn't get trimmed on related pages. Ronabop 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with team's page.Tombride 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough info to warrant its own page.   Proto    ||    type    09:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough good information for its own article. --Cúchullain t c 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.