Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebuilding (professional sports)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebuilding (professional sports)

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

This is more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia. I suggest Wiktionary is more suitable for this type of thing. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that this is the first article written by a relatively new editor. Most of us never heard of "Articles for deletion" until we got the invitation on our talk page.  Bear in mind that any article should have sources so that a statement can be backed up (for example, Ken Griffey Jr's page has 39 footnotes).  There is no such thing in Wikipedia as "everybody knows that".  Even so, I don't think that this is a good topic for an article -- the topic is too narrow and too broad at the same time.  Rebuilding can occur in any organization, and pro sports teams aren't the only entities that clean house and do a wholesale replacement of personnel -- it happens after elections all over the world.  At the same time, it's difficult to find a notable example of a sports franchise that did rebuilding, since the story is always the same -- they were losing, they rebuilt and started winning (or they were still losing, so they kept rebuilding).  If people start saying "delete", don't take the comments personally.  We've all been booed before.  Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete not an encyclopedic topic. There's not much to do but define the term and give examples... the definition is for a dictionary, and Encyclopedia articles should be more than just repositories of examples. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mandsford's clear analysis above touches all points I would have raised. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, time, generalise and merge into rebuild. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 18 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.