Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperfect game


 * 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. BJ Talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Imperfect game

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Not a recognized baseball term, no reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Perfect Game KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we merge a non-word into an existing article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--why merge? it's not a recognized term, and a very unlikely search term (just like "imperfect storm," "imperfect 10," "imperfect 5th," etc.). Drmies (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete made up neologism based on last night's no hitter by Sanchez. I can find no mention of this no-hitter, or any other, being described in this fashion.  Tom Seaver once threw a one-hitter called The Imperfect Game, but that is a piece of Mets trivia, not a nod towards notability. Resolute 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find this term being mentioned in coverage of any baseball games. It looks like a rarely used neologism, and there's nothing in the article worth merging. Tim  meh  23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Every game that isn't a perfect game is an imperfect game (and those happen every single day, literally). Non-notable and very clumsy term ("close to perfect game" seems a better term).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I've never personally heard of this term, but obviously every non-perfect game is imperfect.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (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.