Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comeback (sports)


 * 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 keep. The scope of the article obviously needs to be more clearly defined, but there's no consensus for deletion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comeback (sports)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Comeback can be used not just for sports, and let me point out there there isn't an article on it for non sports instances. What constitutes a sports comeback is also a matter of opinion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's one of those "unofficial" statistics, isn't it? Not kept by leagues, but fastidiously, by fans. Pandeist (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact we could have a page on fourth-quarter comebacks alone!! Pandeist (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete. It's subjective, encyclopedias are objective. In order to keep this, we need a definition of "greatest", within the context of sports comebacks, that's what most people would consider indisputable.--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? We have pages on thinks like List of films considered the best do we not? "We" don't need a definition, we simply need to point to a definition supplied by somebody else of the sort we'd normally point to for this sort of thing. Pandeist (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of example, here's what I believe is generally considered a good source for this site -- Bleacher Report, listing its picks for "greatest sports comeback".
 * Bleacher Report fails WP:RS. You also link to a blog up above. That isn't a RS either per WP:SPS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * why does Bleacher Report fail RS? What makes it unreliable? It's used thousands of times on Wikipedia pages. Anyway, I'm sure you could find RS sources even you couldn't pan which account "greatest comebacks." How about USA Today? Huffington Post? Pandeist (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Also the Telegraph and MSN (although they mix together career and event comebacks). In fact, career comebacks might also be included (I'm looking at you, Michael Jordan and Brett Favre). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the intent of this article. It is not a list article, and is not intended to list the "greatest comebacks"; it is merely intended to explain what a "comeback" is in the context of sports competitions, and how and why they happen. A comparable article would be home advantage. It can and should include examples of events identified as significant comebacks, for the purpose of illustrating what would constitute a comeback in various sports where such a thing is possible. I have added some references to actual academic studies, which should aptly demonstrate that the "comeback" in sports is a phenomenon worthy of examination. This also meets the "objectiveness" criteria suggested by User:AF4JM. Cheers! bd2412  T 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken. In that context I can agree with keep, although I think the prose in the article as it is today needs a little more work to get there.--John, AF4JM (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable and well-sourced. shoy (reactions) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – we deleted Articles_for_deletion/Collapse_(sports) a few months ago (although I can't see the debate at the page for some reason), and comeback falls into the same category of a subjective sports statistic. What I see at the moment is a dictionary definition of a comeback, and a grab-bag of semi-relevant statistics attempting to draw some trends. Then I see sport-by-sport sections which give a brief introduction then launch straight into the subjective/unofficial lists of examples. I don't see a basis for an encyclopedic article here. Aspirex (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike "collapse" (and comparable to Choke (sports)), this phenomenon has been the subject of peer-reviewed published academic examination, cited in the article. If it is suitable for an academic paper topic for multiple papers, then it is suitable for an encyclopedia topic. bd2412  T 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. So an academic paper has done a statistical analysis and concluded that there are final period comebacks of indeterminate size (presumably 1-point three-quarter-time basketball deficits are counted in that) in 20% of games in three unrelated cherry-picked sports – that's just WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistical material which, in the article right now, fails to support any meaningful point; the fact that it's come from an academic source instead of a newspaper or online sports blog does not impress me. Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG, but I do think there's potential to convert this to a broader article about the concept of a comeback in general (i.e. not limited to sports, but the narrative device/trope that applies to sports -- after all, sport is drama)to avoid becoming a coatrack/collection of ideas united only by a term (rather than a single concept). But that's not directly relevant to this AfD, which is about sports comebacks -- and sports comebacks look to be supported by quite a lot of sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The key challenge I perceive is a lack of a underlying common concept, beyond the dictionary definition. Going into details for each sport regarding how a comeback can occur feels a lot like an exploration of the rules for each, which seems like a lot of detail for a general concept article. Listing specific comeback instances seems like giving undue weight to hand-picked examples. isaacl (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The examples are generally those "hand-picked" by independent reliable sources, not by Wikipedians. Several of those sources have compiled overlapping lists of notable comebacks, so whatever weight is given is the weight these sources have given. The common concept is not merely the definition of what a comeback is, but the sourced description of the phenomenon as one of the most dramatic things in sports. bd2412  T 05:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The tricky aspect of using sports journalism as sources is that it has a promotional aspect to it that isn't well-suited for a neutral point of view. "Greatest X" lists are notorious for this, often being written as human-interest stories rather than expressing a serious editorial viewpoint. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on an analysis of the emotional tension and release of the phenomenon, as this would better unify the concept across sports. isaacl (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that additional discussion of the emotional nature of the event would improve the article, and will look for sources on that aspect. I also agree that sports journalism has a promotional element, but it is still journalism. The point of including examples from those lists is not to showcase the "greatest" comebacks in the sports represented, but to provide an unequivocal example of what constitutes a comeback in various sports (in much the same way Score (sport) lists the kinds of scores tallied in various sports). Cheers! bd2412  T 17:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note though that even a run-of-the-mill comeback is still a comeback; focusing solely on exceptional ones is misleading with respect to the overall concept. I suggest the text should avoid describing examples as "greatest", to avoid the impression that the article is a compendium of the greatest comebacks. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are no compilations of run-of-the-mill comebacks, so selecting examples of those would be a bit trickier. In most sports, a team that is down by a score or two at the half, and prevails, could be described as having made a comeback, but there is definitely a gray area as the disadvantage overcome gets smaller. However, no sports writer will dispute that the 2004 American League Championship Series, the 2013 America's Cup, or the 1993 Bills-Oilers playoff game, were examples of a "comeback" within those sports. That said, here is an example of a rather run-of-the-mill comeback being described by the writer as one where "[t]here could not be a better example of a comeback after having their backs against the wall in the first innings than this". bd2412  T 18:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Finding ordinary comebacks is easy and doesn't require a special compilation source as they happen every day. There is a potential due weight concern in singling some out, but even everyday occurrences can benefit from real examples. But honestly I don't see a lot of explanation required for sports with an ongoing scoreboard—the history of the score illustrates if a team came back from a disadvantage. More interesting would be a sport like sailing, I think, where the relative positions of the boats with respect to each other and the wind determine who has an advantage. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 14 November 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.