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. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs[edit]

Hockeycruft. Unencyclopedic, a complete mess, and essentially abandoned. We don't have separate articles on the Miami Dolphins' perfect 1972 season or the Chicago Bulls' 72-win season, why should a Cinderella playoff run that fell short of it's championship get one? It's been proposed to be merged with 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs, but that article goes into more detail about the run than this article does, and is already too long as it is. Moving to delete this article. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the Oilers' run deserves a mention, then every other team to make it would have similar articles. Also, the entire article is just a list of game results and whatnot. -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same concerns expressed by the nom. If there is a need to split the playoff article because of size or complexity, I already proposed dividing it by Conference lines on the talk page for 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Though I have to say that something like the 72 Dolphins team is notable enough for a separate article. A lot of teams have made it to the 7th game of the Stanley Cup finals unexpectedly, however. Three in the past three years, as a matter of fact. Resolute 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant and delete per nom. BoojiBoy 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant and delete. It breaks my heart as an Oiler fan to say it, but this article should just be moved in with other articles about the '06 playoffs, the Oilers, and the '05-'06 season. It was an amazing event in Edmonton culture, but that info should be in articles that talk about that culture. NDP Johnny 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Whpq 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything relevant is already in the main article or in Edmonton Oilers. Powers ^T 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per arguments above. ccwaters 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Mergeanything usefull and discard the dross. :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If there is an article for this playoff run, there needs to be an article on every intriguing playoff run... and that's something we certainly don't need. --Skudrafan1 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons already listed. --Djsasso 00:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I think categories for champions = listcruft, let alone also rans. RGTraynor 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Masterhatch 21:44, 18 August 2006 (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.