Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Patriots strategy


 * 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   -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New England Patriots strategy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team or strategy in general is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, ideals, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk 1  7  05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very well done, thickly sourced article about one of the leading teams in America's de facto national sport. Length of piece makes merger with New England Patriots impractical. Massive number of in-links established for page, this is not an orphan article by any stretch of the imagination. Just as we have plot summaries for television shows, articles deconstructing sports team strategy should be of great interest to fan communities. This is one of the best articles in the last month to be subjected to the indignity of running the AfD gauntlet, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - "In Bill We Trust" is how this is said locally, and "the Patriots Way" is noted frequently in ESPN's many sports discussion programs. The extent of the sources seem to support the notion that this subject matter is notable enough for a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't even think you know what the word fancruft means. This is a heavily sourced article from multiple independent reliable sources about a notable subject. With all of your questionable AFDs lately, I'm starting to question if your admin account has been compromised by someone else. This is getting disruptive. Vodello (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's a great article!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite's and Tarc's reasoning.  I can understand the nominator's concern about having a separate strategy article for every professional sports team, and I wouldn't support keeping every such article, but the Pats are special: coaches and players for other teams (recently, and notably, the 2009 champion Saints (Who dat!) ) are often quoted as stating that they want to be more like the Patriots.  The article demonstrates that this is a significant, notable, sourceable, and extensively sourced topic. The article might be expanded to include the Patriots' controversial personnel management strategies as well.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above rationales. Well sourced and seems to meet WP:GNG. I like the idea for an article, and it'd be nice to see similar articles for other NFL teams developed. The premise is notable. Strikehold (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 16:59, 13 September 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.