Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groin attack (2nd nomination)

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. o_O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] groin_attack

Groin attack was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-30. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groin attack.

This article has literally no point. Who could possibly be searching for information on people getting struck in the groin? Juansidious 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree on that it isn't the best article in the world, and I agree on your second point as well. I found this article because I was told to search for it a while back. But the point is it's an article, and its getting bigger. Plus, this has already been discussed. Twice. Let it be. Maybe if someone wants to know where it says in the bible not hit someone in the groin they can turn to wikipedia.--AeomMai 20:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it was kept once, it should not even be considered for deletion again. 72.88.209.206 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's not a valid argument for keeping. There's plenty of precedent where an article was deleted after two or three reviews. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agreed, plus while its not a great article it's worthy of a place on the project. keep it SMC 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was looking for exactly this page, and it was a pleasant surprise to actually find it. Never underestimate what people will look for on the internet. Oball 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above commentsLyswim 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Useful article with useful information. SuperDT 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge useful data into other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep, it is actually notable both in terms of boxing rules and as a staple of physical comedy. Koweja 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, this opinion has not been altered. Koweja really did write "Delete Keep" Uncle G 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I gotta go with keep. For some reason or another, a couple of months ago I read this article. I forget why but, I dont see why it needs to be deleted. Chris Kreider 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found this page linked from another page, and found it's information useful and well structed. No need to delete this at all. DeadxBoi 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has as much merit for inclusion as any other martial arts technique, and being revered in juvenile behavior has no bearing to its legitimacy. If I remember right, a few styles do emphasize this (and other "dirty" techniques). hateless 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not one single source has been cited, except a Bible verse. I have no problem with the topic choice, just with the quality of the article. In my short time on Wikipedia I have seen several really bad articles about very appropriate subjects. When they get nominated for AfD someone usually comes along and works on the articles to make them better-- improved grammar, more neutral language, some really excellent citations, etc. That hasn't happened with the poor little defenseless groin attack. This is a very readable article, but we have no way of knowing if it is just original research or worse, a copyright violation. Unless there is a real threat of deletion I doubt that anyone will come along and clean up the problems. How long has it been without a cleanup and a fixup even after it was called to everyone's attention? If no one's going to give it the much-needed improvements it shouldn't stay here. Notability isn't the only criterion. I'd wager any one of the men on Wikipedia who has ever been a victim of a groin attack is going to urgently insist that it was notable.OfficeGirl 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • AFD is not cleanup, and {{sofixit}} applies. If you want the article free of original research, take pages 70/72/147/194 of ISBN 0804818762, pages 3–4 of ISBN 1581601387, page 40 of ISBN 0275958620, and page 31 of ISBN 087364168X in hand, and make it free of original research yourself. Uncle G 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It should have been on cleanup notice, but I don't see that it has. The article is a mess. I am not the appropriate person to write for this article. It appears that no one is available to make the article suitable for keeping on Wikipedia regardless of the notability of the subject. When someone writes an article on this subject with proper research and properly cited sources, I'll be strongly in favor of keeping it. Until then, it doesn't belong here.OfficeGirl 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not the appropriate person to write for this article. — Why not? You're a Wikipedia editor. Be bold! Uncle G 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For those who have been smote upon the testes, there are few articles more vital -- nay, crucial-- that the so-nominatated groin attack writeup. While the great wikimasses ceaselessly toil over the finer points of such essentials as Batarang, the Holodeck, and the Clone Wars (all certain topics of great, enduring legacies), it has fallen to a select few of the moast dedicated scholars whom have not failed to un-neglect this non-fictional topic of ancient and modern relevance. --Ghetteaux 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Amazing how a debate can rise over such a topic. As for links...Are they really necessary? If so, google "groin attack" and put the top five links up.--AeomMai 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The page is utterly hilarious - but it might be useful to some people. 69.138.61.168 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Groin attacks are important in self defense no? Is there no way people could link to some sort of self defense site or something? Chewbacca1010 02:07, 2 November 2006 (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.