Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answer (sports)


 * 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. On balance, the arguments of the Delete voters are stronger. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer (sports)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested Prod. Rationale was "Unreferenced article on an unnotable concept in sports. Basically states that sometimes teams score straight after the other one does." Wikipedia is not a dictionary/indiscriminate collection of information. One source is a forum, the other is a few sentences of definition.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Term is extremely widely used in sportscasting, and is used pretty much every day by sportscasters if you watch reports on the previous day's sporting events. The length of this article by far exceeds that of a dictionary entry, so it goes beyond being a dicdef. More than 20 articles link to this page, and there would be red links should this article be deleted. Hellno2 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article (you even say it's about a "term") consists of a dicdef, then the def put into the context of two sports. If deleted, I will remove all those links personally. Best,  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per my original proposed deletion rationale'''. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Is not a dicdef, but an entire concept. As you can see here, you can find thousands of books in which it is mentioned, looking under the redirect, "unanswered points." The way the article written, it is not written as a dictionary entry, but as one you would find in an encyclopedia. A dictionary would not describe how it is applied in different sports; an encyclopedia would. Dew Kane (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Dew Kane, I'm not going to bother looking through all 2190 uses in the search you linked, but all of the first results--except for one already used as a source--simply used the term. Per WP:VRS and the policies it links to, sources must significantly describe the topic for them to be good references. Just using it in a sentence means nothing. Furthermore, those paragraphs on context in the two sports might be better if they were referenced; if I were to completely remove them, as anyone would be justified in doing, would the article be a dicdef then? Instead, we have one badly sourced paragraph and two sections of original research.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a dictionary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added. They pretty much get down to the point and further explain the concept beyond a dictionary entry for each sport listed. Stedrick (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the first new source, but the second only uses the phrase "unanswered points" and does absolutely nothing to explain it beyond that.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep the issue has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (notable) and there is significantly more to say about the topic than just defining it. Issues included or worth including are strategies to achieve answers, the psychological effects of momentum and strategies to avoid unanswered points, and wider definitions of time intervals for points to be defined as answered. So there is lots more to write about than just the definition. Arsenikk (talk)  09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is all of this documented outwith Wikipedia? Please point to it.  Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Google books which are linked in the article you will see the non-trivial coverage I am referring to. Both of these go into further detail about strategies concerning answers and unanswered points than does the current coverage in the article. Arsenikk (talk)  19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I won't, because that one book (It is just one book, cited twice over and badly, to the same page even.) doesn't document anything like what you talk about above. So I ask again.  Where is all of this that you talk about documented outwith Wikipedia?  Please point to it. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources offered or that I can find treat this as a general concept across sport rather than just use forms of the word "answer" in a sporting context. Anything in the available sources about strategy is just about particular sports, indicating that we should cover such such strategy in the relevant articles about those sports rather than synthesise this into a general article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual terms commonly used are "answered points" or "unanswered points." It is obviously impossible to used both as the title. But when a team scores following the opponent's score, it is called "answering." Hellno2 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But can you find any sources that discuss "answered points" and/or "unanswered points" as a general concept, rather than just use those phrases in discussion of particular sports? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * &hellip; or that document "answering". Point to sources outwith Wikipedia that document this.  Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 00:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is really just a dictionary definition for the term "unanswered points", and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Putting the word in the positive as Answer (sports) is an awkward way to phrase it, sort of like in Jack Winter's story "How I Met My Wife". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's mainly a dictionary definition. The concept that in many sports it's possible to score points after someone's scored against you is not really all that surprising, and it doesn't deserve its own article.  The section on basketball is particularly unfocused. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There should be an article on this. It is mentioned in thousands of newspapers and many wikipedia articles too. People want to know what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.220.32.202 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking up the meanings of words and phrases is done by using a dictionary. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.