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. As Goal line is now a dab page with a link to Football pitch, I edited the dab page to include a reference to byline, and inserted a paragraph into Football pitch to explain the term. Hopefully this is a good solution. ELIMINATORJR 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byline (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Especially not a dictionary of lesser-known sports terms. Consequentially 05:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Football is overwhelmingly the most popular sport in most parts of the world so this is hardly a 'lesser known sports term', even if it's not widely known in California. This is an explanation of an entity, rather than an abstract word, so I fail to see how it should be relegated to a mere dictionary definition - unless words like "bridge' are to follow. The article explains the importance of the byline in the tactics of the sport, in regard to wingers crossing the ball, and doesn't merely record the particulars of the pitch marking. Lastly I don't see any nomination for 'End zone' for a sport played by a far smaller number of people which would be a logical next step if this were to go. Nick mallory 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there, cowboy. You can make your arguments without insinuating that I'm uncultured American swine who doesn't believe in that "devil sport" they play in the rest of the world. I know what football is. I know that it's popular. And I also know that any discussion of a particular painted line on a soccer pitch belongs in an article on the soccer pitch, and not on its own. Your comparison to "bridge" is hardly appropriate. Bridges come in a number of types and sizes, have an entire specialty of engineering devoted to them, and, most importantly, have a long and storied history of examples (reported in reliable third party sources) of famous bridges to draw upon. The same can not be said for the byline. Consequentially 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Goal line, the newer term for the same thing as per the current laws of the game. - fchd 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Goal line article refers to American football. Nick mallory 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it needs to be amended to cover all sports in which the term is used, the term is certainly not exclusive to American football ChrisTheDude 09:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 'byline' is commonly used, which it is. The same name is used in different sports to mean different things, just as a pitch in cricket is very different from a pitch in baseball. This is a problem being created out of nothing. Are you saying there should be a redirect from 'byline' to 'goal line (football)? Then there's the whole never ending football/soccer debate. I don't see the point. If Byline should be deleted then so should the current article on the goal line in American football. The AfD nominator wasn't saying this was the wrong word for the concept, but that the concept itself is not notable. Nick mallory 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if if you stopped misrepresenting my argument. This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. End. Consequentially 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying (or at least attempting to say <g>) with my last comment was that the goal line article needs to be expanded to cover other sports that use the term, as currently a casual reader would get the impression it's a term exclusive to American football..... ChrisTheDude 10:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair enough point well made. Nick mallory 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goal line is now a dab page. There are almost certainly more entries that could be added to it. Cheers --Pak21 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Football pitch as I don't see how it can merit a whole article alone. Number 57 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Football pitch. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Angelo 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the point about deleting or merging the aforementioned articles (and for that matter the touch-line article also) is a valid one, and needs addressing whatever the outcome of this AfD. On that basis, Keep until there is guidance on what to do about all "field boundary" related articles. This is a can of worms. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The solution is simple enough. This information better serves the encyclopedia by being included within the article about each individual sport's playing field. Having information in a centralized location allows easy access, and a person looking for basic information on a soccer pitch or rugby pitch or baseball diamond or football field or basketball court is probably going to look for "soccer field" before they look for "byline." Content in Wikipedia should fork into new articles only if there isn't an existing article that it can be incorporated into. It isn't difficult in terms of labor to move the content, and it saves us from the hundreds of stubs that will exist if our precedent is that every line on every field gets an article. An article on the soccer pitch will not be overburdened by a section explaining what the lines are and what they do, especially considering just how little text can be put down explaining what it is. Consequentially 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the encyclopedic content currently here to football pitch: there isn't enough here for its own article, but it's certainly a notable term within the game. There are issues to do with what we want in the way of articles/dabs/redirects we want at goal line, byline, byline (soccer) and wherever else, but we don't need to worry about that here. --Pak21 08:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge/redirect, whatever takes your fancy. Mathmo ^Talk 22:08, 7 August 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.