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 Glossary_of_association_football_terms#S. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squad rotation system[edit]

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

The article is essentially an essay of no encyclopedic value. It has no references, despite having an Unreferenced template for almost 8 years! I'm sure anyone understands the value in rotating between players in various sports and can find links discussing squad rotation, but I really don't see the value of having it as a separate article (which I doubt gets much exposure anyway, given that only 5 articles appear to link to it) as opposed to mentioning its usage in different sport articles.

As it is, the article is a mess that mainly focuses on football (soccer), tries to broaden the subject by briefly mentioning hockey and American football, and then goes really off-topic on band rotation. Given the limited amount of editing over the years, it's unlikely to change. Even if someone thought it would be possible to have this as a separate article, they'd be better off starting over with a blank slate. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary_of_association_football_terms#S. There's no encyclopedic value as it currently stands. It could be expanded (and more importantly, sourced), but I'm guessing that won't happen anytime soon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. This is a classic example where someone has written an essay about a single sport, and a token but misguided effort has been made to make it appear to have a world-wide focus. There's nothing salvagable in this article, and I think it is sage advice indeed to delete altogether and let someone start anew if they ever want to revive it. Aspirex (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability demonstrated. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Giant Snowman 11:43, 27 December 2015 (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.