Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports

article is one gigantic list with many redlinks. This is what categories are for. Perakhantu 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because lists and categories have different advantages, and it would be a shame essentially to waste all the effort people have invested in this page. Note that it dates to early 2004, before Wikipedia used the category system. Shalom ^Hello 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The effort put into the page is irrelevant if it is a bad page. Lists and categories may have different advantages, but you haven't told us why this should be a list. MarkBul 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The red links are precisely the advantage that lists have over categories--they can be more comprehensive, and the red links encourage the development of articles about missing topics. Categories cannot have red links by their nature. The list is also a useful navigational aid. --Itub 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories can't contain redlinks. Hate having too many redlinks - then create articles for them. Simple. Lugnuts 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too overreaching. No possible way to establish objective criteria for inclusion, which in part accounts for all the redlinks. My co-worker and I play trash can basketball, that's a sport, isn't it? Cap'n Walker 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a bad start, and it can be sub-classified even further. Oxford University Press, the same publisher that did the dictionary, published the Oxford Companion to Sports and Games which classifies sports further (bat and ball games, e.g.), and that would be an excellent source to compare this to. Mandsford 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Itub and User:Lugnuts. JIP | Talk 04:23, 26 September 2007 (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.