Boner. Dig this one. While it's true it could probably be larger and more grand on any number of scopes I think it's very nice as is. -RAHB 04:32, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
For. This one is actually alright. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 22:16, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Against. Am happy to escalate my Comments into a vote, to align with the author and encourage him to pump more of the Yankees' storied past into this article--a vote I was going to hold until they are eliminated from the post-season tonight and a smallish article about them on the main page becomes even more inexplicable. Meanwhile, why is nominator using VFH to call our attention to various unfinished articles? Is Special:Random broken? Spıke¬ 10:39 18-Oct-12
Abstain. Some of our articles on sports teams are obviously written by someone with deep knowledge of the team's history. They risk having a niche audience and would have to overcome that to be apt for the main page, but this month might be the right time for the right author to try to play with this particularly storied team. This article, in contrast, is virtually a stub. Spıke¬ 12:40 17-Oct-12
The nomination was not successful. rm 0 0 0 0 0TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 01:10, October 26, 2012 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Boner. Dig this one. While it's true it could probably be larger and more grand on any number of scopes I think it's very nice as is. -
Against. I wrote this. And I like it OK. But, while it's certainly more than a stub (Spike), and although the concept is kind of funny, I don't think the execution of the concept is feature-good. Needs work, I guess is what I'd say. --
Abstain. 
