Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gator Chomp (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   keep. -- Lear's Fool 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gator Chomp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

merge and redirect This article takes a semi-notable fan motion made by fans of the University of Florida's sports teams and uses WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and friends-over-beers fan folklore to try to extend it into something more. The "curse" section is the worst, as it tries to "prove" that opponents performing the motion during games usually causes their eventual downfall.

Note that this isn't a rival fan starting trouble. I'm a life-long Gator fan, a UF alum, and a former Gator bone, meaning that I personally played the accompanying "Jaws" theme hundreds of times. However, this is Wikipedia, not a fan page, and the article clearly doesn't belong. Yes, it seems to be well sourced. If you look at them more closely, though, you'll see that many of them refer to game results that seek to "prove" the existence of a "curse" but do not actually mention the Chomp (or the curse) at all.

My proposed fix is to add a section in Florida Gators (and perhaps Florida Gators football as well) about the Chomp and redirect this article name there. Zeng8r (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This has recently been put through the AfD meatgrinder and was kept. The reason that it was kept is that the Gator Chomp by itself meets WP:GNG by a comfortable country-mile. There is no reason to merge Gator Chomp in to any other article because it is one of the most famous American football gestures, made by supporters, that there is. Moreover, the gesture has been demonstrated by celebrities on American television. There is no reason why a section called Gator Chomp within the Florida Gators article does not summarise the content of the separate Gator Chomp article and then link to it as a "main".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * comment As was pointed out to you many times in the article's talk page, there is not "significant coverage" of the Chomp that says anything more than it exists and is very popular among Gator fans. That's not enough to meet notability for a separate article. Also, many of the current sources are fan blogs, which are not reliable sources in any case. And there is no way to justify the "curse" section. It's just silly. Zeng8r (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erin Andrews performed the Gator Chomp, with Emmitt Smith, on television in "Dancing with the Stars". Michelle Obama performed the Gator Chomp during a campaign visit to Gainesville. There is no reason not to have a section within Florida Gators as well as a separate article on Gator Chomp. Where exactly are you going to squeeze in the Gator Chomp section within the article itself. I had a good look at the Florida Gators article and there is no obvious place because there is already a lot of content there and it is unlikely that you will cut and paste half the information in the existing Gator Chomp article to the Florida Gators article because it would not look balanced.   Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first source is an unusable WP:BLOG. The second contains only exactly one sentence mentioning the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone. I'm sorry the discussion didn't go your way on the last AFD nomination, but that is not a valid reason to re-nominate less than two months later. As stated by the closing admin, the discussion should have been on the talk page. You made almost no effort to start a discussion and, instead, went to immediately to deletion "to get more feedback". This whole process should have been on the talk page first. If you want more feedback, go to boards and ask for it, not nominate for deletion. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's simply not correct. Zeng8r did in fact initiate and participate in discussion at the article after the last AfD, it just didn't get anywhere, with Nipsonanomhmata being the sole voice for keeping the article in its current state. This isn't a tenable position, as the majority of the sources are unreliable blogs and the like, and the reliable sources mention the subject only in passing, which doesn't establish notability.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, I didn't initiate the first AfD on this. Just look at the discussion; it was User:Canterbury Tail. I didn't even know that the article existed until following a wikilink from another Gator-related article. My first impression was that it was very weak, so when an AfD nomination was initiated (by somebody else), I shared my opinion. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of articles NOT from blogs and the like and plenty of reliable sources. Why is there any harm in having this article? It seems to meet all criteria, even if a few sentences can be trimmed. Zeng8r, my apoligies. Those comments WERE directed in your direction, but shouldn't have been. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the person who nominated it also made a comment to justify it, but that was still my mistake. Thanks for not taking offense. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem; it happens. Again, my issue wasn't with the number of citations to seemingly reliable sources. It's that those cited sources often had nothing at all to do with the statement that they're supposed to verify. Anyway, I've cleaned it up quite a bit just now (see below). What do you think? Zeng8r (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. Nothing here establishes notability. The majority of sources are unusable blogs and personal webpages, and even these contain little by way of significant coverage. There are a few reliable sources here, but they contain nothing beyond trivial mentions of the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't see how this helps the encyclopedia's coverage of Florida athletics. It's an extremely well-known sports gesture, and there are mountains of references to it in the media. Problems with the "curse" section (and there are some) don't make the subject non-notable.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * comment The "curse" section is clearly a college sports version of wp:fancruft / wp:synth and should go. If a buddy sitting next to me in the stands at The Swamp points out an opposing player doing an "unauthorized Gator chomp" and says that the poor fool has just sealed his fate, I'd laugh and hope he's right. If I see it in a Wikipedia article presenting that cause/effect relationship as repeated historical fact, I'll delete it an inappropriate for the project. Everything has its place.


 * Anyway, I figured that once that section is gone, there wouldn't be enough information left for the article to ever grow into anything longer than a stub. If some people think that's good enough, then fine. I'm of the opinion that a merge and redirect is the way to go here. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?
Ok, so I went ahead and cleaned up the problem section and references. With all the discussion about the text, I hadn't noticed that there were 4 blatant wp:linkspam problems down in the external links section. They have also been removed. Some of the remaining references don't really talk about the chomp much, but at least they refer to newspapers and other reliable sources, so I left a few that could probably be trimmed if somebody wants to pick some more weeds.

If consensus exists that what remains of the article is notable and valuable on its own, then I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw the AfD nomination. (I have a feeling that a close eye should be kept on the article if it survives, however, to prevent ad links from reappearing later.) Zeng8r (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - If Michele Obama DOES THE GATOR CHOMP and the Gainesville Sun specifically calls it a "Gator Chomp" in a subheadline for its readers, that's good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still keep Clean up is fine. — BQZip01 —  talk 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So, if the current stub-length version of the article is deemed notable enough to keep, I guess we can close this discussion and move on? Zeng8r (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were butchered down to one sentence it would still meet WP:GNG.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and Nipsonanomhmata, and after the cleanup the article is in very good shape in my opinion, no matter how long. Motion to close since it seems an agreement has been reached - frankieMR (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded — BQZip01 —  talk 22:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 07:25, 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.