Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hockey stick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A pointless article which provides more detail than Hockey stick (disambiguation) but less than ice hockey stick and field hockey stick. There is no autonomous information particular to this article. It should be deleted and the actual disambiguation article moved to the default name. jnestorius(talk) 23:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful parent article as set forth in Summary style, particularly the section #Rationale. Many incoming links intend to link to the basic idea of a "hockey stick" without regard to the game being played (e.g. Cricket bat, List of Indian timber trees, Halfball, Shin guard). A user reaching the disambiguation page directly would have no way of knowing what particular article to view to find the basic information he or she wanted on the hockey stick itself. The article also describes differences between the different types of sticks in a centralized manner. Dekimasu よ! 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments.
 * Your examples illustrate precisely why this article is useless. The people making these links did not deliberately intend these links to be to some generic hockey-stick article; they simply made an incorrect assumption about where the link would lead to.  That is precisely why we have disambiguation pages.  The links to "hockey stick" in  Cricket bat and List of Indian timber trees should obviously be to field hockey stick; that in Halfball should obviously be to ice hockey stick.  If that was genuinely not obvious to you, then having a link to an explicit disambiguation page would have helped to make it obvious. A user arriving at the current page might assume from "Before the 18th century bats tended to be shaped similarly to how hockey sticks are currently shaped" would assume that all current hockey sticks are the same shape. A user arriving from "Mulberry is typically used for baskets and sports goods like hockey sticks, tennis rackets and cricket bats." would assume that ice hockey sticks are made of mulberry.
 * "The article also describes differences between the different types of sticks in a centralized manner." No it doesn't. The two sections each separately describe the shape of their respective stick, just as the corresponding main articles do. There is no 'differences between field hockey stick and ice hockey stick' section, and rightly so: any such section would be as pointless as a 'differences between a baseball bat and cricket bat' article.
 * jnestorius(talk) 11:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dekimasu. -Djsasso (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No Opinion : IIRC, I've seen hockey stick used to refer to graphs with that general shape. Given that often forums are used to discuss scientific and stock charts and colloguialisms are often used, something explaining what a hockey stick shape is may be useful for analysts unfamiliar with the sports. I happen to be looking up electrochemistry, but see what happens when you add the term, LOL, [ http://www.google.com/#q=hockey+stick+electrochemical+&hl=en&safe=off&sa=2&fp=PM3WLJuI3Po ] Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The shape you refer to is that of an ice hockey stick, as Hockey stick (disambiguation) makes clear. jnestorius(talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hockey is a well known sport and played in a variety of codes, from on grass to on ice.  Someone new to researching "hockey" in general would find this page very useful.  174.146.255.243 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Good general article, with the 2 specialized articles properly linked to in it. The other articles making links to the wrong place can be editing easily enough. DGG (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (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.