Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last man Jack


 * 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. The problem here is not one of notability, but one of WP:OR. The cricketing term is clearly OR (I have searched myself to find any reference to it without success) and if removed, would leave nothing in the article. The term Every man jack is well known, and an article could possibly be constructed on that phrase. In the meantime, however, I have deleted that redirect as G8 as well as it links to nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Last man Jack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not encyclopaedic: it is just a phrase, about which there is nothing to be said. In addition, its supposed connection with cricket is unreferenced and rather unlikely. I haven't found any sources for the connection that don't derive from this Wikipedia article, and discounts it. ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Every man Jack for which there appears to be far more sources and far better ones at that. It's possible that "Last man Jack" is a particular cricketing variation but that can be mentioned as part of a larger example about the wider used phrase. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that every man jack is a more familiar expression, and so there may be more sources. But what content is there to go into the article?
 * And I haven't found any evidence that "last man jack" is a popular cricketing expression - my reading is that the cricket connection is only in the supposed origin. --ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources such as reference works on idioms, and phrases and scholarly works on folk sayings then it looks like an article could be written that would be filled out though structurally similar to the source you present above. I still can't speak to the cricket usage. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a phrase which is occasionally used in speech (as noted, "every man Jack" is more common), but I could find no scholarly or other information about either version - just examples where the phrase is used. Meanwhile, the most common Google hit for "every man jack" is a line of men's grooming products! Non-notable and unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Scholarly or Other information for either version, Where did you look? There are none for "Last man Jack" but Google Books shows 40,000+ books using "Every Man Jack" and while some are uses in books there there are plenty of Idiom dictionaries, Slang Dictionaries, Common Phrase Dictonaries (both historical and current) - I see Scholarly works by Joseph Sobel, J.B. Smith, amongst others. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty of hits and that is just what they are: hits. They are instances where somebody used the phrase in a sentence. If you found any actual scholarly analyses of the phrase (as opposed to definitions or simple cases of usage), please cite a reference and I'll take another look. Otherwise, it fails inclusion here under WP:DICTIONARY. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have access to a JSTOR (or similar) account so can't say what the level of scholarly analysis about the phrase occurs in Sea-Terms That Have Come Ashore by George Davis Chase in the New England Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1941), or Forenames as common nouns in English and French by K.E.M. George in Studia Neophilologica Volume 58, Issue 1, 1986 or Doubletalk: A Literary Pairing of The Giver and We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy by Barbara A. Lehman and Patricia R. Crook in CHILDREN'S LITERATURE IN EDUCATION Volume 29, Number 2, 69-78 but the likes of Wimmin, wimps, and wallflowers By Philip Herbst, The Jack Tales coming from Afar by Joseph Sobel, do analyse the phrase in relation to the use of Jack  in other phrases and contexts. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly suggests there has been some scholarly analysis of the phrase. However, if we don't have access to any of that material, it can't be added to the article, to verify or expand it - and if the article has no verified content it shouldn't be here. Right now the article is completely unverified, pure WP:OR. Like others here I am very dubious about the supposed "cricket" origin of the term, and a title you provide ("Sea Terms That Have Come Ashore") suggests that it is actually originated with sailors. But how can we put that in the article? It would be guesswork. Right now it's all guesswork. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename as suggested above. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The RS suggesting the article etymology is wrong is evidence of notability, not of a need for deletion! The alternate view should be included. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is folk etymology at its worst (since when have cricketers batting no. 11 been referred to as "jack"?). And you only have two last men in a cricket match and all the rest of the players aren't the last men, so the meaning of the term ("everyone") runs completely contrary to the alleged etymology. Given that the etymology is fanciful (or OR at best), it should be removed. If it is removed then there will be nothing left of this article that is fit for an encylopedia. We can see by the Google hits for this term that people take Wikipedia seriously and we owe it to them to remove such unscholarly balderdash before it gains more currency. asnac (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete current content as it is and then Redirect to either a new article Every man Jack. I was the one who flagged this as citation needed and was going to fix the article when the World Wide Words entry went live on the net (instead of just the newsletter). WWW is a reliable source written by Michael Quinion, a recognized expert on the topic of word origins. The information on the phrase and related terms he has identified is certainly notable, but all that cricketing nonsense has to go as having no reliable sources, which admittedly leaves nothing of the current article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2012 (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.