Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Lions strategy

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 delete. Will userify on request Courcelles 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Lions strategy

Detroit Lions strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk17 05:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - In contrast to the New England Patriots strategy article above, this is a half-assed (or half-completed) effort, with no coverage of the offensive strategy system whatsoever. The Patriots article shows that this can become a high quality article, however, so keeping with appropriate content flags seems the preferred course of action as opposed to merger with Detroit Lions. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. This article is also an orphan, lending support to the idea of some sort of content merger. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not ready. If I were the editor, I would userfy and try again when the article is ready. It COULD be great, but not so much right now. No prejudice to re-write the article if deleted!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:NOT falls here, we are not a sports alamac Secret ^account 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • From the very first pillar of the
    Five Pillars of Wikipedia
    :
    • "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
  • Nowhere on
    WP:NOT does it say Wikipedia is not an almanac. Are the 5 pillars wrong? Are we misinforming every single new user that edits this site? I keep asking for someone to show me where this site says that Wikipedia is not an almanac, and every time they have ignored the request or outright failed. Vodello (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. This article is embarrassingly out of date. The Lions fired Marinelli after the 2008 season and recast their whole strategy. Maybe some of it could be merged into 2008 Detroit Lions season, but this isn't standalone material. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Out of date and there's just not enough content. I'd give the editor a chance to userfy though per Paul. Publicly Visible (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.