Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giving him the business


 * 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. Overall, the notability arguments in favor of deletion were more credible. In particular, evidence that a phrase is being used isn't sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, although it is sufficient for Wiktionary. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Giving him the business

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No verifiable sources (only link provided is dead), penalty does not appear anywhere in the official NFL or NCAA rules.  Running On Brains (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OR (short for "Outside the Rules", or something) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. WP should not have an article on something that was said two times.  Five yard penalty, still first down. Borock (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Penalty (gridiron football). Though it is not official terminology, it has been used by officials in games and there is enough WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that a merge and redirect is warranted; WP:PRESERVE should be followed here, not outright deletion. There was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Giving him the business, as well as a merge tag at the top of the article. This is a kind of personal foul, and should be merged to Personal foul (gridiron football) if it is ever created. In the meantime, there is currently a list entry for "personal foul" in Penalty (gridiron football). Here is a reference two years later in the New York Times to the 1986 incident.. A 2001 article in Daily Herald called the 1986 call "one of the most famous penalty calls in football history"..  There's a 2012 mention in The Record, and a 2008 reference in The Washington Times. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's not a penalty call. The phrase appears nowhere in any rule book, and the referees weren't using it as the name of the penalty. It's just a funny expression that two referees in history just happened to use to describe the personal foul that the players committed. - Running On Brains (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on its continued references in reliable sources, it is a valid search term. See R for convenience for colloquial names used as redirects.  It seems pedantic to limit ourselves to official names, and not getting readers the information they are seeking.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Personal foul (gridiron football) per Bagumba (I don't get why some penalties have their own articles but others don't). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After further review, the suggested ruling of Merge and redirect by Bagumba and Muboshgu has been confirmed. Neither will be charged with a timeout.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Please reset the game clock to... (getting a little carried away, hopefully no one gives me the business over it)
 * Delete funny. But not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you state that this is funny, as numerous voters have on this Articles for Deletion page, then you are obviously engaging in Original Laughing. You invalidate your comments by saying the article is funny. There is no published source that says that PUNCHING AN OPPOSING PLAYER is funny, nor is penalizing a team funny. I think many of you need to step back and change your votes. The more people comment on this page saying that the article is funny, the more people will read your original research into the subject and start agreeing. Anyone who reads that the article is funny but doesn't get the joke will merely assume that you are laughing for a verified reason and laugh along with you. I think you "funny" people need to go back and edit your comments by removing any mentions of humor, lest we have copycats who repeat this fallacy. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After further review I still think it's funny. I still think it's not notable.  One comment does not invalidate the other.  It's possible to be both funny and not notable.  If it's "original research" to say something is funny, and others read in my "original research" that it is also funny, that has no bearing on the notability nor on the outcome of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has a ref here, here, and here. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines with multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.  The article content also appears to be largely original research in violation of WP:OR.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge. Aside from the OR, the phrase is not unique to football by a long shot. The redirect would be implying that it is a football term. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that have not been written yet. There is no deadline. When there are multiple uses for an ambiguous terms, a disambiguation page is created.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 10 January 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.