Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports injuries

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]