Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of A-rod

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse of A-rod

page smacks of original research.-- Syrthiss 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Although there are media mentions, this is way too early to start calling it a curse, especially considering how the Yanks have fared versus the Sox this year anyway. A six year championship drought (and three year pennant drought) is hardly a curse. --Wafulz 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to the Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry article. A seperate article for every single chapter of it seems like problematic. If people still remember this in 20 years (doubtful) then it can have its own article, as Curse of the Bambino does :-) --W.marsh 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Yeah, it's sort of irrelevant, and could possibly turn out not to be "a true curse", whatever that is. But right now, it continues. Its notability is in question, but it has too many mentions for a hasty delete.-Kmaguir1 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Notability is highly subjective- we can't just go by "it's been mentioned in the media." The fact is it's not really a curse since it's been six years; this is the result of a bored journalist and some bloggers from yankeessuck.com. We're pretty much crystal balling by leaving this article up. --Wafulz 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Superstar player goes to New York and doesn't do as well as before. Only happened a few hundred times before. Notable curses, like the bambino or the goat, develop over decades. Only an incredibly spoiled fanbase considers six whole years without a World Series title (with a division win every year) a curse. Fan-1967 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment We're not spoiled, we just have high expectations. ;) SliceNYC 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a little bit of crystal balling and a little bit of neological OR -- it seems like the various media sources make it out to be a joke, like there has to be some explanation for the reversal of fates these last few years. SliceNYC 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Wafulz and SliceNYC's reasons. Seems like a few random guys made it up - not exactly WP material.--TurabianNights 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Where do you start? Original research, lack of citations, obvious POV bias, and the fact that this is hardly even blog worth for mentioning, let alone an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikilegata (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, fails WP:NFT, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:03, 30 August 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.