Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of MLB on FOX

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. If there is anything salvageable here, I couldn't pick it out. Of course a well-sourced criticism section could be added to Major League Baseball on FOX, provided those sources exclude blogs and forum postings... but merging from here is a terrible way to achieve that. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of MLB on FOX

This article is a complete mess of POV, OR, and unverifiable information. Nearly all of the "sources" and "references" are internet forums and blogs, such as the MLB.com forums and GameFAQs' Sports and Racing board. It's beyond help, and should be deleted. WarpstarRider 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Well, it has a lot of sources, which is good, but as the nom pointed out they are mostly to forums and other non-reliable sources. I am hoping that it can be salvaged, but that is a slim hope. Konman72 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, posts by random fans on blogs and message boards are as bad as no sources at all. Remove that, and you have nothing but OR. Andrew Levine 08:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV City. I'd almost vote for deletion just for the article not defining what "MLB" stands for. Astonishingly, there are some people in the world with internet access who are not American. --Dweller 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Very POV. There are just random criticisms, honestly you could have an article like this about everything. Blogs are not reliable sources.--BoyoJonesJr 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything good to MLB on Fox, as there are some valid portions, but I'm not sure it's a whole article. However, that it is criticism is not a good reason to delete, as that alone does not mean it is not fair and balanced. FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 20 October 2006
• Merge anything salvageable to MLB on Fox. A lot of this does ring true, and I know I've seen print sources that echo some of the complaints in the article. Just found this, for example. Zagalejo 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
• Merge with Fox article.Gobawoo 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge everything (reliably) sourced. It's completely true that a lot of people complain about Fox's sports coverage... and with good reason, because it sucks. But that's not really a reason for keeping the info- the fact that multiple well-known sources have spoken of their hatred of Fox's coverage (especially of baseball), however, is. Hell, we could write a huge article just about how much Bill Simmons despises them. -- Kicking222 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete total POV fork, overly cited, we don't need 5 cites (or even 1) just to say someone is pregnant. Tony fanta 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I laugh at all the citations to non-reliable sources in an attempt to make the article look like something other than one long biased rant. TJ Spyke 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. FOX'S MLB COVERAGE SUCKS! Make no mistake, it is awful. But that doesn't make an unreliably sourced rant Wikipedia material. As heartened as I was to see this article written by people who I assume are like-minded fans, there's only a handful of salvageable stuff. Whatever's available from reliable sources can be included in a paragraph in MLB on Fox. SliceNYC 00:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or merge. Arbusto 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OsFan 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kicking222. Although I've generally liked their broadcasts, MLB on FOX is still definitely not without its controversy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:31, 31 October 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.