Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formation (bandy)

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 Bandy. Whether some other split of Bandy is needed for size is left to editorial discretion at Talk:Bandy. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formation (bandy)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Largely original research or personal opinion on the the term of the sport bandy. I can't find anything of any sustenance to explain this term or usage in the game in any detail or enough for a stand alone article. It was redirected to the main article and quickly reverted, so here we are. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT WP:BEFORE I find much RS. Like this, and this. Federation of International Bandy. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Merge or redirect Perhaps a WP:ATD-M or a WP:CHEAP R to Bandy. We have quite a few Bandy articles. Lightburst (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a new article which is just in its beginning development. It could be marked as a stub so far, but shouldn't be deleted. In what way would this article be less relevant for Wikipedia readers than e.g. formation (association football)? Is football for some reason more important than bandy just because it is a larger sport globally? Bandy långe (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that football formations are discussed in detail in reliable sources and there is enough information in said sources to base a stand alone article off. This particular sport does not seem to have enough analyses of formations to warrant their own article. The place for initial development was in the Draft space which you decided you wanted to opt out of that process, so the next option was to redirect to the primary topic of Bandy which you also decided wasn't good enough, all of which is within policies. So now it is up for the community to decide if this warrants it's own article and whether to redirect, delete or merge. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's no difference. There are viable sources to use for this. The draft form should not be used for articles which are ready as they are, even of they are stubs, and there is no reason to delete an article just because it is not a draft. Bandy långe (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-merge to bandy with the understanding that it could be split back out if the section became overwhelming long. Right now it isn't, and the possibility that it could get long enough is not a good reason for multiplying articles. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (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.