Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groin attack (3rd 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groin attack

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

This has never been an article that reflects particularly well on us. As stated at its first AfD, it was started as a joke article linked from Steven Seagal. I wouldn't usually nominate an article that had passed two AfDs, but they were both from 2006. If you were around then, you may remember how different standards were back then (n.b. WP:AADD didn't exist the first time and had just been created the second). I thought it's worth taking a look at the article again. Many of the keep votes back then weren't especially serious (not that the delete votes were much better).

This whole article is a bit of a WP:SYNTH problem. Not that we invented the concept of a groin attack, but the article is basically just an indiscriminate collection of facts about attacks to the groin. It's very poorly referenced because there's not much to say in WP:RS about groin attacks. The stringing together of some physiological information, mention of its use in YouTube comedy, and a biblical reference just add up to a sloppy, amateurish effort that really isn't encyclopedic. At best, it could be a paragraph at Strike (attack). I'll leave the issue alone if consensus is that the 2006 AfDs were rightly decided. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic in the same way Effect of objects shoved up the nose would not be an encyclopedic topic, even if footnoted with 57 newspaper articles about things shoved up people's noses. Grumpy bastard note: I hate the Wikipedia concept of "Synthesis," which is even dumber than the ideas of "verifiability not truth" and "reliable sources." Every article on WP uses "synthesis" in greater or lesser degree. It's just a "crime" wheeled out as a convenient excuse to deep six unencyclopedic topics like this... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things being stuck up the nose is covered in detail in encyclopedias such as Medline and Rochester U.. We cover the topic at foreign body. Warden (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Judging from the book references one can find, most of them looking germane, it seems a legitimate topic in the context of martial arts. I also agree with the first part of Carrite comment (that is, every artice on WP is some kind of synthesis), but not with the second (circular WP:UNENCYC non-argument). --Cyclopia ^talk 10:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that reliable sources have nothing to say about this topic is testicular. See, for example, this, that, and more. Warden (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have not researched yet, but the effect that a kick on the balls has on a man is perhaps the most notable pain a man can experience with little effort from the attacker. And though not very relevant, I must link this to make all men cringe.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH, not properly referenced, not encyclopedic. WP is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUNK is not a policy nor even a guideline. Our actual editing policy is that imperfect drafts are fine and that we should develop them, not delete them. Warden (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said that WP:JUNK was a policy, nor a guideline. I believe that it was clear that I thought that the article was crap and that it is my opinion that we should blow it up. In any event, my first three points were that it is WP:SYNTH, not referenced, and not encyclopedic, none of which have been addressed by the inclusionist argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". You don't state what this synthetic proposition is and, in any case, are simultaneously claiming that the article doesn't have references so that is an illogical self-contradiction. And the stuff about junk/crap/blow is just rubbish. Warden (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not just a definition, its detailed information. Groin attacks are mentioned in the old testament even. References existed to prove it is covered in places. This is no different than the many types of punches that have their own articlesPunch_(combat)#Basic_types as does various types of kicks. Notable combat moves, and not just those in professional sports, have their own articles. Are those who wish to delete this and not similar articles, doing so because they believe it is somehow less encyclopedic than the others, or because they just personally don't like it, considering such things beneath them? Dream Focus 16:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Good topic.Any real criticisms here are pointers to editing, not reasons to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not opposed to a redirect and a bit of a merge to somewhere suitable. But there are more important things to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with those who say the article needs work. As written, it is poorly sourced. However, as others have mentioned, there are sources available and this article can be salvaged if someone wants to put in the effort. Papaursa (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the fact its covered in hundreds of sources. I guess as Dream says some will consider this attack beneath them. Delete voters should keep in mind that just beacause they might be 6"+ elite fighters well trained in noble arts like boxing, not everyone is like that. By definition, over 3 billion of the earths population is of below average strenght, and may need to use this sort of attack to defend themselves. Its almost sexist to delete this sort of article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hundreds of sources" - WP:BIGNUMBER. As for the rest of your comment, please refrain from personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. Sufficiently sourced. Topic may be vaguely amusing to some (such as this blogger[1]), but is nevertheless an encyclopedic topic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2012 (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.