Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Patriots strategy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New England Patriots strategy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete as unencyclopedic. There are references, but many of them are throwaway, and almost all of them are subjective, as they are coming from area sports news or rival coaches (in one instance). As a matter of fact, one of the underpinnings of the article is a statement that the Patriots run a certain type of defense, and there is no citation to back it up. Moreover, an article on a team's strategy makes no sense - there are no other American football teams on WP that have this type of article, and no other sports teams, either, and for good reason - strategies change. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rationales spelled out in detail in extended, unanimous discussion in last year's AfD. I don't see that anything has changed in the article or in Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of this well-sourced and interesting article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Arixiloxos. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD to warrant deletion.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a fully referenced article that meets all required standards, the nominator has failed to provide a valid policy based reason why it shouldn't exist. This is a classic example of poor arguments to use to delete something (other stuff doesn't exist).Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If in case you don't succeed from the first Snow Keep, try, try again. No changes from last AFD to bring about deletion at all.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article could use some cleanup to remove discussion of other strategies (e.g. New England Patriots strategy and New England Patriots strategy) if it's not comparing side-by-side specific facets to the Patriots strategy. In its current format, it seems like unneeded duplication of what is already in other articles. It there are concerns about sourcing, the relevant text should be tagged in the article and discussed on its talk page. Finally, to the nominator's concern over POV, WP:OPINION notes "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy."—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * merge Can anyone explain why this is not central material for the main article on the team? And if not, why we should not have similar articles for every team in the league, and so on. We could find references to justify them, for sportswriters always talk about such matters. There is no limit to the extent to which we could similarly subdivide Wikipedia articles. Maybe its even a good idea--to turn Wikipedia into a database of separate sections or paragraphs, and the articles into frameworks where the readers could recombine and assemble them. We would never need a merge debate again ever, nor AfD, for there would be no defined separate articles.   DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a fairly lengthy article, so a separate article might be justified for summary style. That being said, I think there is cleanup that can be done per my previous comment. Afterwards, depending on the size, merge can be reconsidered.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (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.