- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Training ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article title and content implies that "training grounds" are solely used for soccer training. Attempts to remove the overly-specific content and to generalize the page left it as a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not.
Despite attempts and requests since July, the page has remained completely unimproved. At this point, I am forced to the conclusion that it is unrepairable and that the project would be better off without this misleading page. The page is now orphaned but prior to orphaning, the few inbound links referred to all manner of training grounds (military, other sports, etc), not merely to soccer. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: This page was previously deleted via PROD. It was restored on the assertion that "it could be developed into a good article". The only significant changes since restoration were the addition of a list of examples of soccer fields - no correction of the core issue that was promised in the DRV request. Rossami (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although there is an issue with regard to the content of this article, deleting it is not the answer. One wonders why the nominating editor did not take the necessary steps to improve the article. One assumes that they were just being lazy. – PeeJay 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind ad hominem attacks. Argue about the article and not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reason the article is now orphaned is because the nominating editor has systematically removed all the inbound links! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert, Keep, and Move/Create Dab — to avoid confusion. I agree that "Training ground" means different things in different contexts, and that is why we have disambiguation and the ability to move pages. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Training ground (association football) - training grounds are significant in the context of football clubs and the concept is encyclopaedic. The way forward is for the page to be expanded. I have also added back some clearly appropriate links. For example at The Cliff (training ground), 'training ground' is the prime descriptor and it is standard practice for it to be linked so that the reader can find information on the term. However, I agree that the specific application in the article needs to be distinguished, in the title, from the general usage of the term. Smile a While (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PeeJay. GiantSnowman 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's nothing on this article that can't be fixed. Might be worth organising a WP:FOOTY collaberation here. Bettia (rawr!) 13:53, 21 October 2008 (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.