Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Football. – ABCD 01:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Football (disambiguation)

  • Somebody wrote a while ago on the talk page that this article should be a candidate for deletion. Any opinions on what to do?? Georgia guy 01:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I say keep, since WP is supposed to be multi-national/cultural. BigFatDave 01:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ... I'd like to change my vote on this one to redirect. BigFatDave 01:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Football article itself serves as a better and more comprehensive disambiguation. Weak delete. calS !pu kaeps 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - the football article is a good disambiguation
  • Redirect to football, or else delete--easier by far to redirect, though. Meelar (talk) 02:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I have to agree, Football makes a good-enough disambig. --Kitch 03:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody types in "Football (Disambiguation)"! But we need a football disambiguation page. So delete this current one, then: (1) create a new disamiguation page called Football, not Football (disambiguation), then (2) Delete the current Football page and merge its contents into a new page called Football (history and evolution) or something like that, and then (3) list it on the new disambiguation page along with Football (soccer), American football, Rugby football, Australian Rules football, Gaelic football, and Canadian football. (I'd be happy to volunteer do all this but I don't know how (or can't) delete pages) -- Paradiso 03:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I recommend not doing the above. Step #2 is a GFDL violation. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football. Quite why anyone would want to call a game where people toss an ellipsoid around with their hands "football", instead of a game where people kick a ball with their feet, is beyond me, but who am I to argue with the established convention? — JIP | Talk 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football. The lead of that article does an adequate dab job. Mgm|(talk) 08:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football - the first paragraph is a disambig. in all but name. Qwghlm 09:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There seems to be a stubborn misconception among fans of various codes of football that any other kind of "football" is an aberration. It's a generic term, get over it! Grant65 (Talk) 10:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • And here was I thinking that football had something to do with feet and balls. Excuse me while I go call pub darts baseball. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The ball is (at least occasionally) kicked in every kind of football. In any case the word originally meant any game played "on foot" rather than on horseback, so kicking has nowt to do with it ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 12:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • After reading the argument below I'm changing my vote to redirect, so we can avoid this situation in future.Grant65 (Talk) 02:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Football already has an existing dab page. I don't think a redirect is necessary - I can't imagine anyone bothering to type in "Football (disambiguation)" just to find "Football". Megan1967 13:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect there are other instances where foo is a disambig page with foo (disambiguation) redirecting there. Thryduulf 13:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's probably because in those cases (a) the disambiguation article was merged into the top article, and thus has to exist as a redirect to satisfy the GFDL; (b) the disambiguation page was moved (back) to the top article and the resultant redirect simply not deleted; or (c) the other pages use the {{otheruses}} template, which doesn't work with equal weight (type 2) disambiguations without such a trick being employed. There are no such requirements here. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • It's a pointless disambiguation page that nothing links to (apart from some 2003 talk pages where this idea was mooted and rejected) and that no-one will use. Football already is the disambiguation. The 2003 talk page arguments on this very subject (Talk:List of footballers (archive 1) and Talk:List of footballers (soccer) (archive 2)) are worth reading, as is the name change discussion at Talk:Football; and the resulting development of Football over the intervening two years indicates a clear consensus. No merge is required. No redirect is required, except perhaps to stop someone doing this in another 2 years' time, which is unlikely given that the dangling redlinks only exist in archived talk pages, there's plenty of prior talk page discussion on the subject, and a disambiguation structure is already in place. Delete. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • This page was only created on March 29 2005, long after the consensus on Football had been reached, and despite the existing disambiguation page as you outlined; it has been plainly demonstrated that in the absence of anything, a user can create this page despite the existing consensus. Redirects are cheap. One here would stop us having to go through the same discussion in 2 years' time. Qwghlm 02:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete disambiguation pages should not actually say "(disambiguation)". PatGallacher 01:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • Yes they should. Well, type 3 disambiguations anyway. Please read the info at Wikipedia:disambiguation. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, point taken, but having read this info this would only apply in some specific circumstances which do not apply here. PatGallacher 21:05, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Football is too big. Think of the people with modem connections! Fix the disambig page adding all football variants, instead of deletion. Grue 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are there any Wikipedia which are significantly slow to d/l? I had a slow modem connection until recently (about 40k) and it didn't greatly impede me writing a significant proportion of the football page. Or contributing to even longer articles which have more pictures. Grant65 (Talk) 10:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per UncleG. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to football, for reasons given above. Jonathunder 07:36, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.