Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutmeg (football)

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutmeg (football)

Dicdef of a slang term in football/soccer Daveb 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, real technique, and readers should be able to find examples of players who are known for using it. Kappa 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The standard term for this move and used by broadcasters all the time. Calsicol 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a common term, but it is a dicdef nonetheless. WP:NOT a dictionary. --Daveb 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Expand it then. Or merge wikidictionary into wikipedia. All the coverage of football should be in one place. Calsicol 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ... or put it in wiktionary where it belongs, and wikilink there instead of here where it doesn't belong... (I see that people are keen to keep it here and acknowledge that, but, again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Cheers, --Daveb 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting wikipedia users shouldn't be provided with examples of players known for using the technique? Kappa 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If the list is verifiable, then fine. How do you propose to verify the list? --Daveb 06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • They are, Kappa. It's called Wiktionary, and it's every bit as readily accessible as wikipedia. Denni ☯ 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Wiktionary woudn't accept notable examples of players or nutmegging incidents, or any discussion of the technique - these things would be removed as "encyclopedic". Kappa 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Kappa is quite right. Whilst Wiktionary will take everything that editors have to give on the etymology and roots of the word, and is the correct place for such lexicography, Wikipedia is the place for discussion of the activity. There's no reason that shiny interwiki links cannot join the two together into an overall whole, though. Build the interwiki web. Uncle G 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. -- JJay 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a real and well-known football technique. Carioca 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per other commnets. --Thephotoman 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Merge/Redirect into List of Football terms or some such. This is purely a dicdef as it stands, and probably could not be anything more. Moreover, a list of players noted for using the move does not IMHO constitute encyclopaedic material. Zunaid 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you're going to delete this you might as well delete Dribbling, Tackle (football) etc. «LordViD» 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The terms tackle and dribble are generic and apply to many sports as their articles show. W.r.t. tackle, many sports (including all types of football) have specific laws dealing with the legality of certain means of tackling an opponent (in some cases it goes further to define what constitutes a tackle and what laws apply when a tackle takes place etc.). "Tackle" is part of the official vocabulary of the sport. Nutmeg is exclusive to soccer and is a slang term which would not be found in any rule book. Consequently there does not seem to be much to say about it besides describing what it is. Zunaid 11:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Outside the U.S. "soccer" is about as important as all the other sports in the world put together. We're not talking about a korfball term here. Bhoeble 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but article needs to be expanded greatly. --MisterHand 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. {{footy-stub}} the article and allow for expansion. —gorgan_almighty 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per comments above Jcuk 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is no good reason to delete, apart from overzealous editing. This is not Britannica, things are changing for the worst. The editors obviously dont like football.

• Comment-in-reply: I put up this AFD and can safely say that I love football: the bulk of the current article Football (soccer) was written by me in a series of major rewrites, in addition to almost all the articles on restarts (many new articles), the article on fouls (major rewrite), the article on misconduct (new article), the article on the field (major rewrite), etc, etc. As mentioned above, I just don't think the Nutmeg article as it existed belongs here (essentially a dicdef with a tagged on non-verifiable POV list); I don't think the recent alterations make it any more encyclopaedic. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia afterall. --Daveb 00:04, 22 December 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.