Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner play


 * 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - Nom !voted below which indicates they've withdrawn (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Spinner play

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary !!! Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed it isn't, but it's a trick play referenced in several articles and a dictionary is usually the source for such things. Cake (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment If article is deleted, merge it to Glossary of American football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep if that's your only concern. The article is about the play, not about the term. Otherwise, I concur with WO-9. Might be the best option if the article will be a permanent stub. Lizard  (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exclamation marks don't make deletion rationales any more true. This is stubby, but lots of articles begin as (sub)stubs. The Football source already cited is, more properly: It provides definitions of the play, in at least two variants, and some history of its development. Its use and development was also the subject of critical examination during the appropriate time period. Examples include a pair of articles by Guy Lowman in the early 1930s: ; and  There's more than enough material in those three sources to flesh this out into a fuller stub, at the least. A more comprehensive article could probably find some additional material; a cursory search suggests this lithograph of the topic by Benton Murdoch Spruance is at least interesting as an addition to an article that has otherwise already cleared the notability bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned above, the article concerns the play itself, not the term. And exclamation points don't help. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Am convinced! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck as you've already gone with delete. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per all above as a notable historical gridiron football concept. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like the nominator withdrew his nom, so this can be closed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2016 (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.