Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health issues in American football (2nd nomination)

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. Closing a bit early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 19:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues in American football

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

I tried cleaning up this page.

This page is mostly statistics that are unsourced.
This is written like an essay.
I have read through the article and cannot find a way to integrate the statistics that make it relevant to the title of the article.
It has been nominated for deletion before 3 years ago.Curb Chain (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - in reading the prior AfD, the major concerns seemed to be the combination of unrelated material ("public awareness and the media") and a lack of sourcing. The former concern appears to have been mostly addressed immediately after the close of that AfD with the removal of that section and the renaming of the article; the latter is, at least partly, a function of a bunch of unformatted external links (I'll try to get some of those fixed). Setting aside the problems of the current version (essay-like, sourcing, etc.), this is a notable topic which does deserve its own article. cmadler (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed most of the bare URL refs with Reflinks. There's one left marked as a dead link, but I think we can find an updated version here. cmadler (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very important topic and has been covered by many sources, hence "notable." The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find many resources documenting "concussions in American football". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started out thinking this was a new article that may well duplicate an existing article on the health aspects of American football. It turns out that THIS is the main article, established back in 2005. There was just a piece on concussions in sport (with an emphasis on football) in National Geographic. This is not only an encyclopedic topic worthy of inclusion, it is a HOT topic in popular culture. The article needs improvement, to be sure, but this is not the Article Improvement Workshop. An absolutely clear keeper. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See: "New Brain Science on Football Concussions" (cover title), which is Luna Shyr, "The Big Idea: Brain Trauma: Lasting Impact." National Geographic, February 2011, pp. 28-31. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which (was the other) article on the "health aspects of American fooball"?Curb Chain (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is certainly a subject that has garnered a lot of media coverage in recent years. This piece from The New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell may help to beef up this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell. This article should also incorporate the history of health concerns in football going back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt and the legalization of the forward pass. This is already referenced at History of American football#Violence and controversy (1905). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable topic. The content itself might need some cleanup and editing... and I say--WP:SOFIXIT! Article content is normally not a "deletion" issue but an "editing" issue. Article "existence" is a deletion issue, and this article should exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Clearly notable topic as demonstrated above, it needs more referencing and improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: Articles have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times, National Geographic, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, and NPR, among others. The article meets Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "content fork" that has actually received lots of scientific study and mainstream media coverage. An appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. (I would also support a Concussions in American football spin-off, if it were to be developed.)--GrapedApe (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this too, but citations must be referenced discretely.Curb Chain (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we count this as a withdrawal of your AFD nomination?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No:( I just support that if Concussions in American football was made with citations referenced discretely, I would support this.Curb Chain (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep per Ute in DC, Paul McDonald, and wp:gng. – OhioStandard (talk)
Keep AfD is for non-notable articles, not notable ones that need cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (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.