Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (sports) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Clutch (sports)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It appears at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Clutch_(sports) that consensus was reached in 2009 to delete this article, and it doesn't appear to have gone through any deletion review or substantial changes to alter that conclusion. I'm a bit new to the process, but I honestly can't even tell that it was ever deleted per the AfD consensus. Regardless, it remains a poorly written article that lacks neutrality and is composed primarily of original research. I could imagine a proper article on the topic, but it would be little more than a dictionary definition inviting further non-neutral editing and original research. Given the lack of progress the article has made since the original deletion discussion I think it is clear that it should be removed. Thomas Craven (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The page appears to have been re-created in December 2009, but I can't find any deletion review, either. The pre-2009 history appears to be intact. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll bite. Delete per the consensus at Articles for deletion/Clutch (sports) in 2009, particularly suggestions from Chzz and Rlendog that the article (now as then) consists primarily of original research. Currently a search of Gbooks and Gscholar finds only a handful of what appear to be self-published books, along with lots of false positives (e.g. "The white linen clutch sports and adorable fox that's stitched with sparkly metallic embroidery floss."). I am less persuaded by 2009 arguments that the list of "great ones" is a personal attack, but it is personal opinion unsupported by reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is mainly original research. Terms like this belong on Wiktionary...that is, without all of the original research. T  C  N7 JM  18:15, 8 August 2013 (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.