Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ski jumping accidents
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 delete. The keeps don't really give any arguments based in policy. If anyone wants a copy for userspace, let me know. Fences&Windows 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of ski jumping accidents[edit]
- List of ski jumping accidents (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)
Irrelevant for wikipedia. Belongs on a fansite rather than here. Highest Heights (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The topic of significant injuries in any sport can be notable, particularly in those instances where it was a career-ending accident. That said, I can't even say a weak keep on this uninformative little list. It's basically a list of names of notable jumpers who got hurt each ski season. I guess I'll avoid "Harrachov" when I go jumping. Mandsford (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good navigational aid. Although it should breakdown also the type of injury each incident involved, esp. if they were career or life enders. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands or improve significantly. I was thinking keep before I looked at the article, but when I did look I found that it's not at all useul. There are no inclusion criteria, and no sources. Geschichte (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or upgrade. Most of the people have articles, but almost none of the articles mention the accident, so it cannot be seen if it was important in their career. the net result is it is neither directly nor indirectly documented, and fails WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's useful, but it will nead alot of expansions. Perolinka (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:USEFUL. Geschichte (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we missunderstood eachother because i said it was useful because of another user, who said it was not... Perolinka (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, but I think that user added an explanation as well, in the next sentence. Geschichte (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we missunderstood eachother because i said it was useful because of another user, who said it was not... Perolinka (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:USEFUL. Geschichte (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List with no inclusion criteria can not be verified. Unless someone come up with a good criteria for inclusion on the list it should be deleted. I can't think of a good one. Rettetast 22:20, 26 December 2009 (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.