Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports clichés (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of sports clichés

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research with no sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article. The article also has numerous POV issues, as it doesn't explain how many times a phrase has to be used in a sport in order for it to be considered a "cliché".  TBC Φ  talk?  01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak Delete No inclusion criteria, no sources, WP:NOT. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It has sources now and google shows it is not really indiscriminate, but still needs explicit inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article can be fixed, then AfD is not the route to go. See WP:Deletion policy, where it says: Problem with page ... [Item:] Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) I see this under "Solution:" Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. A list of sports cliches can be put together without being WP:OR as long as sources are cited saying "such and such is a sports cliche" and the citation could be disputed with a simple Google search or Google News search showing that the cliche isn't repeated as much as one would think a sports cliche would be. Inclusion criteria is simple: Is it a cliche used in sports topics? Yes or no, in or out. I don't know what is meant by POV in a list like this. Noroton 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (added to my comment Noroton 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
 * The article doesn't only have cleanup issues, but POV issues as well. Determining which phrases are cliches is entirely subjective. After all, how many times must a phrase be used in order for it to be considered a "cliche"? Five times? One hundred times? One thousand times?-- TBC Φ  talk?  03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * TBC, you're not getting what I'm saying: those ghits I link to in my comment below are what someone identified as sports cliches. Get a respectable source, cite the respectable source, build your list The Wikipedia Way. I just went down that link a little bit and found "Best Sports Cliches Ever! (Paperback) by Don R. Powell" over at Amazon.com. It's got blurbs from Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine. If you disagree with what Mr. Donald Rasputinovich Powell or some other respectable source has to say, the burden's on you to prove him wrong, it seems to me. That's where a small number of Google hits may help, although no, I don't know how small. Anyway, you don't really have to decide, you just have to cite respectable sources.Noroton 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see 29,000 ghits for "sports cliches" here. Without going further, I think it's pretty clear there are adequate sources out there. Noroton 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. Indiscriminate collection of information. Arkyan 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:NOT. /Blaxthos 09:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn cruft. Gandoman 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I completely reworked this page. Every cliche has a ref, and the page has multiple refs, so notability for each cliche, and the page itself is established.  The OR is removed, and as for how many times makes a cliche, that's up to the reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work Peregrine! Noroton 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOTABILITY, multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability, compliant with WP:ATT, WP:NOT. --Matthew
 * Keep. The article was completely rewritten a few hours ago.--DorisH 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nowt wrong with this article now. I might even add a few myself.  Eliminator JR  Talk  23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was going to put keep, but then I looked up List of sports idioms and English language idioms derived from baseball and these seem more than adequate. Mghabmw 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-Beyond fixing.--74.104.224.214 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - not all idioms have become cliched. Also recommend discarding the delete votes prior to the massive re-write. Neier 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because lists like these are convenient and fascinating to sports fans and casual readers alike! :) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP There are TONS of lists on Wikipedia. If it's to be encyclopedic, it should be here. Just figure out how to get a workable list
 * Delete it with 110% effort one day at a time.   Buck  ets  ofg  04:43, 19 March 2007 (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.