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 redirect to Netball and merge as per editorial discretion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netball positions

[edit]

Enencyclopedic mess that doesnt belong on Wikipedia Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 09:51, 20 June 2007 UTC)

Redirect to netball - it's already well-covered there. By the way, an article being poorly-written is never valid grounds for deletion, and the subject clearly is encyclopedic. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in reply -- you havea point about the poorly written part, but i infact didnt say the subject was unencyclopedic, but the article. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:07, 20 June 2007 UTC)

...but you did nominate it for deletion, which implies that you considered the article unworthy of being here, and - as Matticus says - being a mess isn't in itself grounds for deletion (Redirect, BTW) Grutness...wha? 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I dont really care to debate this any further. Delete or redirect, I dont mind. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 07:08, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Hello before you comment think. I am only ten years old and I wrote the netball positions page. I wrote the page because I love netball and i know that netball is well covered on wikipedia but the positions aren't well covered. So if anyone is planning to make a wikipedia page that says mine is bad, I'll be first to put yours up for deletion. Anon

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your age, you seem to show great enthusiasm for the project. I myself am only 2 years older, and understand your concerns. However, your article on Netball positions does not qualify some of the criteria which constitute Wikipedia policy. The information contained within the article is very similar to certain sections within the Netball article, and the actual subject of the article (netball positions) is not (I hesitate to say) important (for want of a better word) enough to actually warrant having its own article. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. Some other editors have said that they would have the article redirected to netball, or a relevant body of text with the netball article, which is not a bad idea either. I hope that I have been able to explain myself well to you. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:42, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Merge with Netball, in its own section. -- Steve Hart 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call to close - now been seven days. Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 12:08, 27 June 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.