Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torpedo system


 * 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, per improvements. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo system
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Note: AfD page changed to Torpedo system Natural hat trick (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles defining neologisms are not appropriate, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At best it should be moved to the dictionary. Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The assertion that this term is a neologism needs to be documented to provide support for the deletion proposal. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Burden of proof is on the article creator to proove that it is not one. What needs to be referenced is an article about the term. Not articles using the term. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tkynerd, please read WP:PROVEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there do not seem to be sufficient sources to write about this term. Even two-line pass is a redirect and that was used for years and years. Additionally, the term is occasionally used in other sports where there is passing. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the term is referenced in two references and three external links. All reliable sources. Clearly not a neologism. Natural hat trick (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again you missed the part where it says the articles have to be about the topic. Not just articles that use the topic. Here is the quote I placed on the talk page of the article. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very narrow interpretation of WP:V, and I remind you that WP:NEO is only a guideline. We should use common sense here. Five newspaper articles referring to the torpedo pass clearly show that this is a verifiable term. Here are some more references, all that I view as reliable:
 * Slate
 * Sports Illustrated
 * Sporting News
 * ESPN
 * BBC
 * Move it to "Torpedo System" if you want, but this is clearly verifiable. Natural hat trick (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it is widely used it is still relatively new due to the ability to make these passes only just started in the highest league in the world. As mentioned above, even the more well used term two-line pass is only a redirect. This would be better suited on Wiktionary as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not to mention that only 5 newspapers is a very small number. Searching google for this term has been very fruitless. -Djsasso (talk)
 * If the article were rewritten to be about the "torpedo system" (e.g. "Sweden's "Torpedo" style hockey   (two centers, two halfbacks and one defenseman) has been the talk of the international    hockey world. It's a very aggressive attacking style, perfect for a team with    a tradition of strong skaters and responsible defensive play." I would vote to retain, but that may as well be written in a new article space torpedo system. The existing article does not even really differentiate from the two-line pass except to indicate that the penalty was dropped, and without such explanation it's not very helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All good suggestions. I've started to rewrite the article and tried to move it to Torpedo system. Would appreciate help as I probably made mistakes moving things around. Natural hat trick (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say the article is now a much better article which you can source a bit better. Even thought I am the nominator I will change my vote to Keep. I won't however withdraw the nomination because there are delete votes on it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This should be in a larger article about the Torpedo System. --JD554 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: much better now under the new name and with extra info. Changed vote to Keep. --JD554 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - substantial rewrite addressed article's needs. Flibirigit (talk) 19:24, 6 January 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.