Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchange (Australian rules football)

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 Keep --JForget 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interchange (Australian rules football)

Interchange (Australian rules football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does not seem to warrant own article. Information could be merged with Australian_rules_football_positions#Interchange_Bench, although some seems to have just been copied across. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah but it's not just a "bench" when it is used as a gameplay tactic. Coaches have long used the interchange system to win matches. The litmus test is can this subject make a stand alone article with references from reliable sources? Yes in my opinion it can. I probably should get myself busy and work on the article. I was hoping for a little more support from other obviously biased Aussie rules fans out there? Am I being inclusionist with my "keep" opinion? Yes probably, but Wikipedia is built on volunteer labour. That's right folks. No one's getting paid for the hours we spend here trying to make a "real" encyclopedia by using free labour put in by bankers, cooks, housewives etc. Who once Wikipedia gets so completely huge and perfect that it outshines Encyclopedia Brittanica (build by paid labour by the way) and then Jimbo decides to sell it off to the highest bidder who then stuffs it full of paid advertising! Will probably feel that they shouldn't have bothered with all the effort they devoted here in the first place? The Interchange article is part of a series of Aussie rules positional articles that those unpaid volunteers, when you take a look have put a lot of unpaid work into. If this article was an obvious case for deletion I wouldn't bother getting up on a soapbox like this, but this one can and should be expanded and kept. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Precedents have been created with each of Substitute (football) and Substitute (cricket), although it may be doubtful there's sufficient notable content to justify this entry. Murtoa (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. Merging is an editorial judgment which should be discussed on talk or project pages - it doesn't require an admin to hit the delete button. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see any violation of guidelines/policy. The nomination appears to cite issues that could be dealt with elsewhere. Suggest placing a merge template. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to merge. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Topic is notable enough for article. Luksuh 03:27, 5 April 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.