Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-football


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-football

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neoglism TexasAndroid 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. As it stands, the article is just a coatrack to attack the Glasgow Rangers. But the term is quite common, and is certainly not a neologism. A  ecis Brievenbus 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phrase is very new is now apparently not new and has been used by reliable, third-party published sources, including BBC and The Herald (Glasgow). -- Satori Son 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - since it's already been copied to Wiktionary, and it's just a defamatory term for a style of football some people don't like. If you must, a single sentence in the main football article would suffice. - fchd 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rewrite, This article as it stands is just a coatrack for criticism of Rangers. The club most closely associated with the phrase are Barcelona, who have used it, or similar criticisms of any defensively organised opponents they fail to score against for many years. The phrase is not a neologism at least not brand new, it is used here Google book search from a book published in 2001 about the 1968 Intercontinental Cup, and here it was used by Johan Cruyff in 2002 to criticise Brazil after they won that years World Cup Nacion.com. The Spanish original translation of the phrase (anti-futbol) is commonly occurring. The article should be rewritten so that it doesn't simply read as an incredibly recentist attack on Rangers. King of the  North  East  17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a phrase used as criticism, not a specific tactic that can be described. I've tried to make the article more neutral but it looks like it was created as a coatrack. A dictionary definition would be enough. Snigbrook 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Surely this is anti-Rangers not anti-football. Peanut4 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm starting to change my opinion. This is starting to be better sourced. Still not sure how relevant a term it is or just a buzz word by a couple of bitter footballers. Peanut4 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COATRACK, without prejudice to a proper researched article being created on the subject. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per snigroot. BeanoJosh 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI have added a little historical perspective, the phrase has only recently been used as anti Rangers, it has historically been used in England (anti-Argentine), Spain (anti Italian) and Argentina (anti Brazilian). I hope you will reconsider your calls for deletion now that I have removed the seething anti-Rangers bias. King of the  North  East  21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Original submitter changing my opinion. The re-written version is no longer an attack article, and is now fairly well sourced. - TexasAndroid 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious improvements have been made since this was nominated. The term has been in use in the sports media for several years and I think it's gone beyond a neologism and is a notable term. An eye may need to be kept on it to avoid any further vandalism but the term, when discussed from NPOV is worthy of an article. Tx17777 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per King of the NE. Sebisthlm 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - as it stands per my timestamp, it is a widely-used term, with many well-researched sources. Again, as at this timestamp, there is no more criticism of Rangers than there is of either Chelsea or Real Madrid, for instance. No longer a coatrack. Ref (chew) (do) 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Quite regardless of the longevity of the phrase, the article is almost entirely about the use of the phrase, and not about the concept.  As such it is purely lexicographical, and not encyclopaedic.  If someone wants to write an article about the tactics and motivations of defensive play, or anti-football, there might be something that merits a place in an encyclopaedia, but this is not encyclopaedic, it's about usage of a translated phrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The progress on this since the AfD has been immense. Keep it, then have it as the improvement drive article of the week in WP:Football. Da-rb 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism about something which cannot be clearly and unambiguously defined. --Angelo 21:42, 13 November 2007 (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.