Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of formations in American football


 * 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. Whilst the consensus isn't clear, the article is so wildly different now to the one that was nominated, that this AfD is effectively on a different article that no longer exists. To my eyes, Formation (American football) is an article on the theory and rules, this is one on the practice. Consequently, I'm closing this as keep. Ged UK  13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

List of formations in American football

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Incomplete list with its formations being in Formation (American football).  Zappa  O  Mati   03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Adds nothing to the content in Formation (American football). Duplication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplication: there's nothing to merge. I added Red Hickey as the inventor of the Shotgun to the main Formation article as it's well-cited; I didn't add Clark Shaughnessy as the inventor of the T-formation, since the source doesn't look great, to my inexpert eye, and the source says that it was invented in the 1800s and only re-popularized by Shaugnessy. Dricherby (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In fact, most of the content of Formation (American football) should be moved into this list, and that article should just have the positions, the formation rules, the historical development of formations (e.g. fatalities from mass formations leading to the NCAA, the development of offensive and defensive platoons, etc.), and a few of the most important (both currently and historically) formations. All the rest should be in the list. cmadler (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an awesome idea for a list article and one that will be fun to continue to research and add to for many years to come! I agree that many of the details in the "formation" article are better used here.  Excellent example of a good, solid start for a list idea.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know there's no time limit but this article has been so much fun to research and add to that it's listed a total of three formations since September 2008. Dricherby (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3.9 million artricles in the "English" version of Wikipedia. Can't speak for anyone else, but I just found it yesterday through this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need for two articles on the same subject.  Formation (American football) is the Green Bay Packers, this list the St. Louis Rams. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've made a start at shifting the content to make them less duplicative, as I described above. I see this as akin to President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States. Formation (American football) should give a brief overview of positions (with a main article link to American football positions), a brief mention of a few of the most important formations (I'm thinking I, pro-set, shotgun, 4-3, and 3-4), and focus on the formation rules and historical development of formations in American football (e.g. mass formations, platooning, etc.). cmadler (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to establish consensus on the articles' talk pages, first? In the example of the presidents, there's a clear separation between the duties, office and history of the presidency; who has been president; and what each individual president did. But I'm not sure that distinction's nearly as strong, here. Dricherby (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the list article is retained, the actual list of formations clearly belongs in it. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but if it's deleted, all the content will need moving back. Dricherby (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: the page has changed so dramatically that opinions (including my own) posted prior to 13:00 UTC on 4th June are of little relevance to the articles as they now stand. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Formation (American football) or keep, but definitely do not delete. I'm always surprised when no attempt is made to WP:PRESERVE information. This article is clearly well organized and uses WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to present all the formations along with diagrams; the information and organization is currently lacking in "Formation (American football)". Also, the articles have been tagged for a proposed merger since November 2010;  its disappointing that no discussion was started to support or oppose the merge suggestion before resorting to an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That's because the articles have changed dramatically since the AfD was posted. When it was posted, the article was almost empty: it contained the name, inventor, date and diagram for three positions and nothing else . All the information that is now in the article used to be in Formation (American football): . As a matter of fact, I did preserve everything there was to preserve: I added the name of Red Hickey to Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background on the recent updates. Being that readable prose size of Formation (American football) was only 36K, WP:SIZESPLIT does not justify a split based on length alone. What are the compelling reasons to have two separate articles? List of formations in American football currently is a WP:SUMMARY and not a standalone list.  If the summary is comprehensive, what is the reason why a standalone list is needed and why it should not be all just one article?—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 6 June 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.