Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association football (soccer) ball skills


 * 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. This is an unlikely redirect target so.... Spartaz Humbug! 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Association football (soccer) ball skills

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page consists mainly of Youtube links and is otherwise redundant to Association football tactics and skills. I wouldn't mind a redirect but the current article is useless in encyclopedic terms. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Not really an encyclopaedic topic, since Wikipedia is not a "How to" manual. – PeeJay 20:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure of the copyright of the videos linked so maybe the should be removed but it is informative/encyclopedic on skills used in football. Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is informative and useful and there is no overlap with the Association football tactics and skills. How is this list really different than something like Karate stances or List of Taekwondo techniques?  The difference is they don't have external links to useful multi-media videos.  Also this page has been up for less than a week, so please give it some time for the content to be enhanced as this is only a framework that has originally been set up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is the problem, Wikipedia is not supposed to provide external video content for every single section at all, it is an enclopedia that mainly provides informative text. As was said above, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and does not rely on Youtube as that cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Not to mention possible copyright issues with those links. So if we remove them, there will be nothing left that is not already explained in Association football tactics and skills. And Karate stances as well as List of Taekwondo techniques have lists of references from reliable sources; and they are, as far as I am aware, the only articles dealing with these techniques while there's already another detailed article on football skills and techniques. Rather than starting a completely new page, the existing article should be worked upon. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An unsourced article is not a reason to delete. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An article that is redundant to another one is a reason to delete. We don't need two pages on the same topic. And unsourced material may well be deleted as original research. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the redundant article? If you read some the text referencing other people's names of where the moves came from, this is listed nowhere in the other article you mention!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic. - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it not encyclopedic? It explains types of ball skills used by football players and an encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics, if someone wants to know what a nutmeg is or a step over in relation to soccer they can find it here. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is encyclopedic.. That mess of an "article" as stands is either a joke and needs to be deleted or needs to be cleverly merged into a soccer/football article. I personally think it should be deleted and be done with it. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering how one is suppose to build an article?! As I said, this page has been created less than a week ago and I did it to try and create a framework with information to be added in later.  Should there not be some reasonable time period... (in months I'd expect) for a page to get a reasonable amount of information?
 * This page is already large enough as it is and I don't think should be merged into the 'Skills AND Tactics' page you're referencing. I originally wanted to split the page into a separate Tactics and Separate Skills, and this was a way to do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgates456 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So is the description of the Preki move a suitable reference? How is this different from Superman punch?  Should we not instead tag the article 'Needs references'?--Bgates456 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything of note to the game of football is redundant (or at least, can extremely easily be made redundant) to Association football tactics and skills. Anything notable for being one individual's trademark belongs in that individual's article. Once you remove those, the list becomes extremely trivial. As an aside, if this somehow ends up as a "no consensus" close, please move this to its correct title at Association football ball skills. --WFC-- 07:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect duplicate of non-youtube based article. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redundant article that is completely unsourced and bound to cause confusion with the similarly titled article. Merge any salvageable content to Association football tactics and skills. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life  talk  18:41, 27 August 2010 (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.