Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports injuries: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:17, 11 February 2023

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 keep. John254 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports injuries

Apparently TW has failed me. Let's see if I can re-state my original line of thinking: This article strikes me as un-encyclopedic. It was originally created by an anon way back in 2002 (!!), and lay dormant for two years. Since then, there's been activity, but even now, the article is little more than a lead-in telling us the blatantly obvious ("Sports injuries are injuries that are the result of playing sports"), then a lengthy "treatment" section that seems little more than a glorified how-to. If it were a more recent addition, I might lean towards WP:SOFIXIT, but seeing the edits from the past five years only reinforce my gut instinct that this article is hopeless. Action Jackson IV 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sports medicine, better article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and Wikipedia has no deadline. Give it another five years or work on it yourself. None of this is any reason to delete. And the Sports medicine article is worse IMO. Colonel Warden 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the policy cites, but I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. If I could work on it myself, I wouldn't say that there's no hope for it. I'm saying that the lack of progress over five years reinforces my gut instinct - not creates a gut instinct. Sorry for the over-emphasis, but perhaps it'll help my point come across. Can you (or any keep !voter) explain to me why (or how) this article would be encyclopedic (and not merely a treatment how-to) - given that that what is and what isn't a sports injury is completely arbitrary? Anything I can think of would just as easily be placed in injury or sports. --Action Jackson IV 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bad article is better than no article, on an encyclopedic topic, try nominating for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive if you want an article improved not AfD. KTo288 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Re-Write Valid subject, good base, needs improvement is all. -- Librarianofages 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all of the above. Artw 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable subject which I could see becoming a GA or even FA given enough time. Information could feasibly be sourced regarding statistics for injuries in different sports and levels of sports (eg school through professional level), whether changes in OHS policy have lead to a decrease in injuries over time (or not? i don't have the stats on hand). The article could list some famous people who have been injured playing sports, and include some quotes from the authorities about whether they think sport needs to be regulated to reduce injury. I'm sure I've heard this from some of our politicians (I'm Aussie). Naturally the sports industry would have a pretty good rebuttal to this absurd argument, which could also be included in the article. THE KING 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. jj137 (Talk) 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It is clearly an encyclopedia article but it needs to be tidied up and improved scope_creep 17:19, 31 October 2007 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''keep'''. [[User:John254|John254]] 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 ===[[Sports injuries]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|G}}
 :{{la|Sports injuries}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports injuries|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 31#{{anchorencode:Sports injuries}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 Apparently TW has failed me. Let's see if I can re-state my original line of thinking: This article strikes me as un-encyclopedic. It was originally created by an anon ''way'' back in 2002 (!!), and lay dormant for two years. Since then, there's been activity, but even now, the article is little more than a lead-in telling us the blatantly obvious ("Sports injuries are injuries that are the result of playing sports"), then a lengthy "treatment" section that seems little more than a glorified [[WP:NOT#HOWTO|how-to]]. If it were a more recent addition, I might lean towards [[WP:SOFIXIT]], but seeing the edits from the past five years only reinforce my gut instinct that this article is hopeless. [[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Redirect''' to [[Sports medicine]], better article. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Redirect''' to [[Sports medicine]], better article. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Speedy Keep'''  [[WP:NOEFFORT|AFD is not cleanup]] and [[WP:DEADLINE|Wikipedia has no deadline]].  Give it another five years or work on it yourself.  None of this is any reason to delete.  And the [[Sports medicine]] article is worse IMO. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' Thanks for the policy cites, but I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. If I ''could'' work on it myself, I wouldn't say that there's no hope for it. I'm saying that the lack of progress over five years ''reinforces'' my gut instinct - not ''creates'' a gut instinct. Sorry for the over-emphasis, but perhaps it'll help my point come across. Can you (or any '''keep''' !voter) explain to me why (or how) this article would be encyclopedic (and not merely a treatment how-to) - given that that what is and what isn't a sports injury is completely arbitrary? Anything I can think of would just as easily be placed in [[injury]] or [[sports]]. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' A bad article is better than no article, on an encyclopedic topic, try nominating for [[:Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive]] if you want an article improved not AfD
+*'''Keep''' A bad article is better than no article, on an encyclopedic topic, try nominating for [[:Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive]] if you want an article improved not AfD. [[User:KTo288|KTo288]] 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-. [[User:KTo288|KTo288]] 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep & Re-Write''' Valid subject, good base, needs improvement is all. -- [[User:Librarianofages|Librarianofages]] 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''keep''' per all of the above. [[User:Artw|Artw]] 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', a notable subject which I could see becoming a GA or even FA given enough time. Information could feasibly be sourced regarding statistics for injuries in different sports and levels of sports (eg school through professional level), whether changes in OHS policy have lead to a decrease in injuries over time (or not? i don't have the stats on hand). The article could list some famous people who have been injured playing sports, and include some quotes from the authorities about whether they think sport needs to be regulated to reduce injury. I'm sure I've heard this from some of our politicians (I'm [[Australia|Aussie]]). Naturally the sports industry would have a pretty good rebuttal to this absurd argument, which could also be included in the article. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - per above. &nbsp; [[User:Jj137|<span style="color:black;">jj137</span>]] (''[[User talk:Jj137|<span style="color:black;">Talk</span>]]'') 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Keep''' Why was this nominated? It is clearly an encyclopedia article but it needs to be tidied up and improved [[User:Scope creep|scope_creep]] 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>