Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Spot

: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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sweet Spot]]=

:{{la|Sweet Spot}} ([{{fullurl:Sweet Spot|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Spot}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fits under criteria for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article should be on a single topic. Patchy1Talk To Me! 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Fix Widely used term, widely inlinked, passes google test. Article is currently in a terrible state, but that, as always, is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

::Many fixes implemented. I think no one will complain about it now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article definitely needs a good clean up (I would remove the "Non-sporting use" section altogether) but I don't believe that it falls under WP:DICDEF.

:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22Sweet+Spot%22+baseball+OR+tennis+OR+cricket

::http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/BatSweetSpot.pdf

:http://books.google.com/books?%22Sweet+Spot%22+baseball+OR+tennis+OR+cricket

::http://books.google.com/books?id=CPosYIEgag8C&pg=PA139&dq=%22Sweet+Spot%22

::http://books.google.com/books?id=CPosYIEgag8C&pg=PA147&dq=%22Sweet+Spot%22

::http://books.google.com/books?id=BeVP2YmqLUAC&pg=PA267&dq=%22Sweet+Spot+is%22 — Rankiri (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, but limit the article to the sporting concept, i.e. area of a racquet. etc.. The article needs to be about the sweet spot area, not about the term. The "usage of the term" nonsense needs to go - this should be in Wiktionary, with a link pointing there. The article is not currently about one topic, but about several fairly unrelated topics linked by a single term.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely used term deserving of its own article. DICDEF is not applicable here. –Moondyne 02:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article has been improved. AFD should be closed. Patchy1Talk To Me! 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in it's current, encyclopaedic form. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.