Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge to Rebound (basketball). Excellent discussion led to this clear consensus. The content has been merged, and the page converted to a redirect. Nice work all. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing out

Boxing out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. There are many terms that coaches use to describe the concept of "boxing out". Different coaches have different terminology. Making a page about one term is non notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Boxing out is a universal basketball terminology and an essential basketball concept. matt91486 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a source saying that?Undeath (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There are 450,000 google hits for "boxing out basketball". I think it's safe to say the article can be sourced if it's looked at closely. matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Basketball. An essential concept, yes, but one worthy of it's own article? Not so much. DarkAudit (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Audit, you beat me to it. It is not worthy of it's own article. There are many, many "essential" concepts to any type of sport, but they do not have their own page.Undeath (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Full-court press, Zone defense, Man-to-man defense, Princeton offense, Box-and-one defense. I'm sure there's more, these are just the first basketball concepts I could think of to search. I think it's safe to say there's precedent for basketball concepts. matt91486 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, it has sources. But why does it need it' own page? Why cannot it be merged with basketball?Undeath (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Precedent does not matter. DarkAudit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
            • That wasn't my reason for inclusion. My reason was that it meets notability. I was just trying to respond to your point. you can't make the counter point to otherstuffexists and then use it against me when I say it in fact does. matt91486 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth merging, since it's unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any extraordinary claims in the article? This is very basic information and is easily verifiable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Alright, I'll admit, I'm very surprised at the direction this is going. Tomorrow when I get out of class, I'll see if I can spend some time going through references and giving the article a rewrite. So if you're voting delete at the moment, I'd like to ask that you check back in the next couple of days to look at the current version, if you might. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No matter what you add, it will still just be a part of the game. That alone either constitutes a Delete or a Merge. Rules or any concept of a game is not worthy of it's own article. The concepts and the rules of a game or a sport should be included in the page about the sport.Undeath (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree wholeheartedly and that's certainly not policy. Articles on games would get bogged down if every concept was detailed in the article. matt91486 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, if an article gets bogged down, then make a page dedicated to the rules. For example, make a page like Basketball (rules), or Basketball (concepts). You do not need to make an individual page for each and every rule/concept for a big game like basketball.Undeath (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not unreasonable, and I'm not averse to turning this article into a general concepts of basketball article. It could be well done, there could be see expansions of the more drawn out philosophy stuff, etc. That's a perfectly reasonable solution. It would take some work to put together, and I find it far preferable to putting into the main basketball article. Not sure of the exact naming of any prospective article though. matt91486 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think the most logical merge target would be Rebound (basketball). Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This concept should be explained somewhere on Wikipedia, as it's a major component of basketball. (And yes, "boxing out" is the established term in English; see [1].) I don't see why deletion tools are necessary; at the very least, this can be converted into a redirect for a broader article. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete' not sure if this can be any more than a basic definition WP:NOT Corpx (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't even think this could be a redirect? Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Alright, I agree with Zagalejo, that merging and redirecting with Rebound (basketball) is the most logical and the least work creating a whole new article. UndeadWarrior, DarkAudit, any thoughts on that? matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 30 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.