Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing a Sunderland (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. Courcelles 03:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing a Sunderland
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Without sources, appears to be a Neologism. Google news archive brings back a few trivia mentions of this term. CutOffTies (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. With only two trivial mentions as potential sources, the article does not satisfy WP:N criteria.--hkr Laozi speak  17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The previous version gave a different definition (which would probably be "Doing a West Brom" these days) and the current version looks like it only exists to rubbish Newcastle United and so has NPOV issues. Apart from all that it is not a term with any currency and so should be sent packing. It was redirected last time but I for one would rather see it deleted and salted lest we get a third version where it suddenly means being friendly with Norwich City! Keresaspa (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete' - I have never heard this term used in the context claimed, and the page clearly only exists to rubbish Sunderland's rivals (and, given that Newcastle are currently 5 places higher up the Premier League than Sunderland, the author might want to revisit the claim that Sunderland are the north-east's top team.......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete like Chris, I have never heard such a term in such a context. GiantSnowman 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete How in the world the last AfD got closed as a "no consensus" is beyond me. This was created by an IP address, never has been sourced, and only two people out of nine suggested keeping it.  It's "not a vote" but really...  Mandsford 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: When seeing the prior nomination, I was also baffled, but this project has come a long way since 2005, right? --CutOffTies (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely. It was nothing in 2005 and it's twice that now.  Mandsford 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, never heard of this term and it doesn't appear to be in wide use beyond unreliable sources (ie chat forums) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Like everyone else, I've never heard this term being used in any context. I took one look at that article and immediately thought "WTF?". Even after looking through the article history when it was slightly better than this version, I still can't see how this article was kept. The original deletion rationale was spot on - the whole subject is inherently POV.  Bettia  (talk)  11:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO, uncited, not in common use, no encyclopaedic value,-- Club Oranje T 11:22, 5 November 2010 (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.