Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletic scholarship

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 of the debate was strong consensus keep for the rewrite. Xoloz 04:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletic scholarship

It's a bitter POV dictionary definition. - squibix 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - squibix 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. Yay! - squibix 21:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Scholarship - Bobet 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC) -> Change to Keep since rewritten article expands on the definition in the Scholarship article. - Bobet 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scholarship mdd4696 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above: that article already contains a paragraphs saying that “the recipient (of the scholarship) may be determined by students’ athletic, academic, artistic or other abilities.”. Current article says just this + POV + OR. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) Keep the rewritten version. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Athletic scholarships are a class all their own, deserving of separate article to cover their origins, nuances of NCAA regulation, famous instances of manipulation, and to contrast the critiques raised in the article as it stands with the perspective that athletic scholarships provide educational opportunities to students who otherwise might not have them at all. BD2412 T 16:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - mad rewrite begun. BD2412 T 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with major cleanup/rewrite. Certainly more than a dicdef. Possibly a future subsection of Scholarship, but probably best as a separate article per BD2412. Turnstep 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand; many issues related to this should be taken up here. Karol 17:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten (already in progress) Punkmorten 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BD 2412's rewrite. Well done to him. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid subject, good rewrite. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good subject and seems to be rewritten well. --W.marsh 19:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent rewrite, well done BDA. AndyJones 20:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The original was a petulant POV gripe, but the rewrite is good. Reyk 21:32, 12 November 2005 (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.