Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad call


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad call

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a dictionary entry. I can't imagine any reliable sources discussing this concept in depth. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dez Bryant and the rest of the Cowboys will have to look elsewhere. Rename List of controversial sports calls and non-calls, but get rid of the organist and the PBL example. Note that "controversial" expands the definition and allows the inclusion of Dez's catch/non-catch, the Fail Mary, Super Bowl XL blunders (boo, hiss). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete but might be useful over at Wiktionary. - Gaming4JC (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree. It does not even have the definition right. The article claims it is a call the fan does not agree with but it might actually be a bad call.   HalfGig   talk  03:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep? Maybe there is some room for expansion (etymology, famous controversial bad calls)? I tried to add some references in and expand it, but sports isn't my area, so it's up to you guys.  Bananasoldier  (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Imagine? Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is supposed to look.  Making assumptions or using guesswork is how bad calls are made.  When I look, I find no shortage of sources discussing the concept in the context of baseball and tennis.  For example, see Major League Umpires' Performance; Call 'Em Right; Scorecasting; Nobody's Perfect.  The latter is an entire book about how a bad call cost a perfect game. Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But you'd have to explain how "bad call" is somehow the right term for the general topic of "poor decision by referee that affects the outcome of a game" or something like that. The links you've given are about refereeing and decisions and whatnot--but what is needed, of course, is discussion of the very concept of "bad call". Drmies (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These sources are just fine and there's plenty more out there. I was a certified softball umpire and there's formal training and tests for such.  The making of calls is obviously a key topic in this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google News search at the top of the AFD. Ample news coverage of bad calls in sports.  It is notable because it gets coverage.  We also have a number of articles that mention notable examples of bad calls.  I added some to the article.  You can search through  for other examples as well.   D r e a m Focus  17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, examples of bad calls are not "in-depth discussions of the concept of poor decision by referee or umpire". Drmies (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep "Bad Call" has expanded usage beyond specifically sports. The usage within sports has expanded to all sports.  Direct translations between languages do not a suggest foreign equivalent meaning the term is specifically English. Misapplication of Wikipedia rules and deletion of this term would be a bad call.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplifyonly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic. For AfD the article doesn't need to discuss the topic "in depth" (ie. a long article). It needs to be a stub (a few sentences), and it needs to offer more than Wiktionary. And be sourced. This is already accomplished, and I can easily imagine ways to expand the article by discussing some famous bad calls which have had an impact on the sporting world. -- Green  C  23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Umpire abuse or referee. This article is a good start but the info can be moved to the Umpire Abuse page and be expanded on. As a standalone article, it is a dictionary entry, but I agree on there being at least a redirect to another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerospeed (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The article could use work, but the subject of bad calls in sports is definitely covered enough to be able to write an article about. Here are some articles about bad calls in baseball:, , , , , , , , , , . Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:IAR and fix it. We're still building an encyclopedia, after all these years. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a bunch to the article (which someone tried to delete).  User:Egsan Bacon demonstrated there is a lot more material that can be added, so the article can clearly be expanded upon. Trackinfo (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of those "material" you added is called a "bad call" by reliable sources, so it's just a wp:original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Marginally correct only due to the tense of the word. The originating source came from an article entitled the "10 Worst Calls" . . .  I hope you don't suggest that because these are the baddest of the bad in the opinion published by a reliable source, that they are not themselves "bad" Trackinfo (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per DICDEF of course. It's just a phrase that in itself has no in-depth discussion because it can't, and the additional mandatory list of "notable examples" is just there to pad the bibliography. Actually, it's worse--the list is not a list of examples of usage of "bad call", it's just a list of controversial decisions by referees. And dinners with mom, apparently. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be and is discussed in depth. For example, see The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football"‘Making a bad call’ is the single most important stressor amongst officials in volleyball (Stewart & Ellery, 1998), a finding echoed in basketball (Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993), and football (Taylor, Daniel, Leith, & Burke, 1990). Given that making a bad call and crowd noise will raise levels of stress in the noise group referees in a similar way to that of the match referee (sources of stress felt to be difficult to control), the coping strategy is likely to be one of avoidance. As the crowd is likely to make it clear if they feel a decision was ‘wrong’, avoidance could be interpreted as simply not making the unpopular decision to penalise the home team when assessing less clear or contentious challenges. Whenever a home player commits a foul, the crowd’s reaction is capable of activating the potent stressor of making a bad call, thus increasing the level of uncertainty or indecision among referees, resulting in no decision (avoidance) and fewer fouls against the home team."

- Psychology of Sport and Exercise


 * And, of course, we see this effect in Wikipedia too, as partisan noise may cause admins to ignore evidence, facts, logic and policy to instead appease the crowd. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete The article and the discussion here is unfocussed, covering in inadequate detail a wide range of semi-related topics. The psychology of officiating, impact of home field advantage on officiation are better served on their own page, video replay and umpire abuse are all full enough topics that they can be discussed independently; and the blanket heading "bad call" does not do justice to any of these topics (e.g. home field advantage or square-ups may influence decision making, but doesn't necessarily make the calls relating to them "bad"). Finally, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a location where a grab-bag of controversial or incorrect calls can be described, because this will be difficult to manage and it will have dubious encyclopedic value to have all such calls from a wide range of sports compiled in one location. Aspirex (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary (specifically wikt:call because they don't have a "bad call" article); alternatively, transwiki (closer's discretion). It's a dictionary definition but also a plausible search term.  If someone types "bad call" into the search box of their favourite online encyclopaedia, then we ought to be able to do better than a redlink that invites them to write an article in that space.  Of course, if one of the editors above somehow turns up the sources to write "bad call" as a proper encyclopaedia article, then the soft redirect can be reversed, but the soft redirect should go in in the meantime.— S Marshall  T/C 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking as if adequate sources haven't already been found, which is ignoring the many examples presented above. For avoidance of doubt, here's yet another one. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Green and Daniels analyzed ball and strike calls made by Major League Baseball umpires for more than a million pitches between 2009 and 2011. In their study, which recently won second place at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, they show that an umpire's strike zone shrinks in counts when the batter already has two strikes (and therefore a third strike would result in an out) and expands when the batter has three balls (with a fourth ball then resulting in a walk). "Oftentimes, the umpires face a choice between a call that would be really pivotal and a call that would be relatively inconsequential," says Green. "And what we find is that they err on the side of the inconsequential call unless they're absolutely certain that the pivotal call is the right one.""

- Stanford Business School


 * Personally, I think that's an article about decision-making heuristics in the context of baseball. I don't think it's really an article about the concept of a "bad call".— S Marshall  T/C 13:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have an articles about heuristics and sports and heuristics in judgment and decision-making but they have their critics too — there's no pleasing some people.  Anyway, if it's pure concept you want, then we just need to start looking through the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport!   This has the perfect article for us: The Concept of a Call in Baseball!!  Unfortunately, it costs £25 to read online so I need to figure out a cheaper way to get a sight of it.  It's 17 pages long though and so seems quite promising.  Per our editing policy, we should not be deleting early drafts when there's such potential. Andrew D. (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Bad Call(s) should be a humble addition to an already incredible achievement, Wikipedia. user:  (talk) (UTC)  — Preceding simplifyonly comment added by Simplifyonly
 * Delete: per WP:NOTDIC. There is also no sourcing for this article ("articles that use the term" is not the same as "articles about the term"). — BenTels (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs polish (and much elimination of superfluous commas), but the topic is viable. Pax 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: but pluralized as a topic..."bad calls"? If anyone has noticed, this page is one of the top new Wikipedia pages. As a topic bad calls is not subject to WP;dicdef deletion. The suggestion to move this term to a dictionary is not well thought out.  No other reliable dictionaries have this term.  Each word is widely used and the combination means something very specific.Both the term or topic exist, and are discussed and is used by reliable sources.  Game officials, those most stressed after a bad call, will likely be contributors and might justly blame overly intricate game rules that make officiating more, rather than less stressful.  On a personal note, Wikipedia policies, standards, guidelines, conventions, codes, practices and rules come down to the most basic reality; You can't follow all the rules, all the time.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can%27t_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time  And Wikipedia policy; Ignore all rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. see "confusion"
 * Comment I believe everyone voting for keep is getting blinded by the potential content, and overlooking the fact that it will be impossible to produce a cohesive article of this name. We've reached the point where almost every topic relevant to umpiring/refereeing – from umpire abuse, to video reviews, to the easy of policeability, to the stress on umpires – could be described separately for every major sport in the world, and somehow that's meant to go into a single article. All of these topics, chronicled properly, can be stand-alone; and for each sport, it can also be stand alone. The much-described content about policing the baseball strike zone would surely be more appropriate in baseball umpire than in a centralized article about bad calls. I still believe deletion is the most sensible course of action here. Aspirex (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another comment I think it's important to point out that the events of the past day call the suitability of the title of this article into serious question, even if the final decision is to keep. The reason being that "bad call" (or "worst call") has been used almost entirely to refer to the Seattle Seahawks' final play call in Super Bowl XLIX, and not to an umpiring/refereeing decision. Aspirex (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2015 (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.