Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports engineering


 * 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) Nordic   Nightfury  08:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sports engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An incomplete article, Article fails to qualify minimum requirement at WP:NSPORT, Nor meets criteria of WP:REF. The article doesn't show exemplary of Sports Engineering, Ideally, it falls under the degree of "Engineer".

I call upon Wikipedians to decide whether this article should be kept for further development or removed. Kindly concentrate your opinion and decide the vote. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me  18:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not clear to me what the rationale is for this AFD. It's a stub, but the two references seem to show prima facie encyclopedic usefulness for the term. What's the actual problem? - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - If there exists a journal dedicated to the subject, with a reputed editorial board, then surely it must meet Wikipedia standards. I didn't bother to look for more sources, which I'm sure there are plenty. - NQ  (talk)  20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been stated. Very nearly all of our articles are incomplete, WP:NSPORT says nothing relevant to this topic, the article cites sources per WP:REF and the rest of the nomination statement is equally devoid of any valid reasoning. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the reasons given by 86.17.222.157, who puts the matter well. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per above. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - a stub, but prima facie encyclopedic and not actually useless (I came away knowing more than I started) - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - great idea for an article. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:NSPORT - or how do you play golf with out a ball at a major tournament. Agathoclea (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, this is an established field of sports (just like, for example, sports medicine), universities study it, there are firms and people who specialise in it, books are written about it, journals specialise in it (here is another one in addition to the one mentioned above Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, organisations that represent it, and so on and so on, we could probably have a taskforce/workgroup or even a whole project dedicated to this .. if only we had more editors(sigh) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 4 September 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.