Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanger (Australian rules 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. There's a serious lack of any kind of strong opinion one way or another here despite a previous relist. ~ mazca  talk 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Clanger (Australian rules football)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to me that this term

- is at best, a WP:DICDEF that should be ported to Wiktionary

- or otherwise, would make an a good entry in Urban Dictionary

As *not* always, please *do* agree with me. Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  17:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning keep. See this article from less than a month ago in The Age, which I've added to the article as a reference. Considering that was from less than a month ago and I'm not the best at finding references, I think it would be safe to assume there are more references out there. Also, when you look at all the articles in Category:Sports terminology and its subcats, there seems to be precedent to keep articles such as this one. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Isn't this just a variation on the general term "(s)he dropped a clanger"? (which I get 226,000 ghits for) Unless there's a very specific reference within Aussie rules (as, say, in Error (baseball)) then I'd lean towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a specific type of statistic recorded by Champion Data (the leading company for statistics recording in AFL). Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'd expect to see it in use somewhere - somewhere where's it's being cited for example. So, maybe, here? Which it isn't - and Champion seem to be a fantasy football stats provider, yes? So I can see how it might be used in that, although I know nothing about the notability of AFL fantasy leagues. Sorry, it might be notable but at the minute I can't see anything that makes it so. I'm very happy to change my mind once that notability's shown, but until then I'm still at delete, OK? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Although Champion Data do provide the stats for fantasy leagues, they are also the official statisticians of the AFL and all AFL clubs. I will quote verbatim from the reference I added to the article "The terminology sold the technology. Reams of data weren't enough - Hopkins needed a new vernacular for his new stats, and the names he came up with ('Hard ball gets', 'The Clanger', etc) quickly became part of the football lexicon. Eddie McGuire began using the new language on The Footy Show, and by 1997 every club was paying for weekly statistical reports, if only for $5000 a season. (These days, a full suite of products can cost almost $100,000 a season.) In 1998, the company won an AFL licence to deliver statistics, a deal driven by the creation of AFL.com.au and which allowed them to expand." Whether this is what you were looking for in terms of proof of notability is up to you. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, "part of the football lexicon". Where? Show me that and I'm perfectly happy. Until then it's verging on the something someone made up I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red Prolate Spheroid Thing, and I stand by my initial WP:DICDEF rationale. But now, every time I tune into the radio to listen to a game, or pick up a copy of The Big Paper (Melbourne) or The Little Paper (Melbourne) this use of "clanger" seems to be ubiquitous, as if just to mock me. Aaaarrgh! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has definitely entered the football lexicon. Just did a google news search for the term "clanger + AFL" (see ) and got hits such as "Sydney had 24 clangers by foot" (ref), " "Through the game we've ended up with 80 ineffective or clanger kicks, which is just way too high," Ratten said." (ref), "Eight of his 15 kicks were either ineffective or of the clanger variety" (ref), "produced a quarter that amounted to just two combined goals and 15 clangers" (ref), "Gilbert found a game-high seven clangers to take his season tally to 21" (ref) and "of the 700 disposals, 200 were ineffective or clangers" (ref). All of those refs are newspaper articles from major Australian cities (eg Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide). Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They're perfect then! The only question is whether it falls into the dictionary category. I'd imagine that there's mileage though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reading through the WP:NOTDIC policy, I'm not really convinced that we're barred from having articles on sports terminology; indeed, we have a great many articles on other things of this sort. This term is heavily used in coverage of Australian rules football, and explaining its meaning can lead to expansion into a full encyclopedia article. As a result, I really don't see any major problems with retaining this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2011 (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.