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 Redirected to 1969 World Series, which was done some time ago actually. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1969 World Series Highlight Film

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is not relevant enough to have its own article. It should be summarized and become a part of the 1969 World Series article. Fjord6789 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)— Fjord6789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (The nominator has been indef blocked as a Vandalism-only account[1]) [reply]

Delete nothing that can't be put into 1969 World Series. BUC (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Partial Merge per the logical reasoning and comments of BUC and nominator User:Fjord6789. And despite this properly formated AFD being the only edits ever made by the nominator,[2] the reasoning is sound. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some East Coast bias as to why does this World Series get an article about their highlight film and the others do not and I used my previous Wikipedia knowledge.- Fjord6789 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Earlier knowledge. As an IP? I support a redirect and partial merge per the comments made by you and by BUC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article gets an article because someone wrote it, not because of any [[East Coast bias}]. Nothing is inherently preventing someone from writing an article about, say, the 1989 World Series highlight film (involving 2 West Coast teams), assuming there is anything notable to write about it. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The nominator has been indef blocked, so they will not be able to respond to others comments until the block is lifted. Dave (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And seeing these edits and summaries,[3][4][5] I doubt he'll be back... at least in this persona. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of the contribution history, I could almost make a case for a compromised account. But that's for wiser heads than mine to decide. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge per BUC. I can't see a reason to list a single highlight reel when there aren't any others that have articles. Such material rightly belongs in the article concerning the particular series in question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.