Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MLB.com


 * 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MLB.com
Unencyclopedic; just a short sentence about it in the MLB article would suffice. &mdash;  Ed Gl  04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No point in even mentioning it in the MLB article because there's a link to the website on the bottom of it. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Major League Baseball unless there's already something there about it, in which case, delete. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Already listed as the official website under the External links section of MLB, which seems to be about all this article had to offer anyway. tmopkisn tlka 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Already mentioned in the external links section of MLB article, so redundant.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to merge. Practically a db-empty. Fan-1967 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after expansion. Fan-1967 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am about to expand this article somewhat; this is a noteworthy topic, and it doesn't need much to be a decent stub.  I hope others will revisit their votes after my revisions. Mango juice talk 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, done with my revisions for now. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be said here, but this is a major, major website and well worth including; hopefully the article has enough of a structure that future expansion is possible. Mango juice talk 05:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Mangojuice's edits. I think alot could be said about websites of sporting leagues that could merit their own articles, as sites are used beyond that of just simple promotion (ie, web broadcasts, fantasy leagues, decent news coverage with independant editorials, etc). However, I think the article still could be merged into Major League Baseball as is, then expanded out of it as needed. hateless 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvments by Mangojuice. Wikipedia has articles about notable websites. This seems to be one of them. Ans e ll  06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after Mangojuice's edits. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ansell. Dionyseus 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand MLB.com is far more substantive and notable than the article implies. There are tons of features that ought to be expanded on, that would make MLB.com pass the worthiness test with flying colors. --Kitch 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Major League Baseball. The article as it stands right now is the perfect length for a section in the MLB article.  If there's more to be said, then it can be split back out when that information is added.  Powers 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per mangojuice's edits AdamBiswanger1 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep highly notable - still work in progress, but what isn't ? WilyD 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to MLB page, per nom and Lt. Powers. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems fine now that it's been expanded. fbb_fan 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, with no prejudice against a fork if it grows again - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's the site of major league baseball!!! Green caterpillar 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. That's why it belongs in the Major League Baseball article.  =)  Powers 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rewrite looks good. tmopkisn tlka 19:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Mangojuice's expansion and good work. RFerreira 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep very notable website


 * 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.