Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spooning (croquet)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spooning (croquet)

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

I think there are several reasons why this article is inappropriate:


 * The article gives two completely unrelated meanings for the term it is describing.
 * Neither of these terms is in current use in the game (but the article does not make this clear). The references are to pre-1900 literature on the game.
 * There are no similar articles for many other technical terms used in croquet, whether in current use or obsolete, and I don't think it would be appropriate to create them, except perhaps in a few cases of terms that are really important - which this one isn't.

Appropriate treatment might be to change the entry on the main Croquet page to note "Spooning" as an obsolete term for pushing, or for a vigorous swing.

Mhkay (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The facts that the terms are obsolete and that there are no similar articles for other croquet terms ae not valid reasons for deletion. What is more, if you claim the terms are unknown now, it is even more important  to have wikipedia article on them, which is strength of wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias. There is such a thing called history, including history of sports. `'Míkka>t 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this be edited down and sent to wiktionary via transwiki? Jeremiah (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And "editing down" would be a NPOV euphemism for "deletion of correct and well-referenced encyclopedic information someone thinks useless", eh? `'Míkka>t 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like the article and is just as valid as say Hooking (ice hockey); I do a lot of work on the rugby union pages and the terminology and rules shift so much that unless you knew the correct terminology of the day, it would be difficult to understand historical outcomes, especially pre-1915. It could be added to the croquet page, but if that happened to all the terminology listed, would it not become too large an article? FruitMonkey (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Satifies notability criteria. Major (some people call it unfair) way to move the ball(from what I can understand.) -- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  01:50, 13 September 2008 (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.