Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFC South Curse


 * 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   weak keep. If the article about this apparent 'curse' isn't expanded in the near future, it should probably be listed again. One (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NFC South Curse

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

Completely unreferenced original research. - Fails WP:OR ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely unencyclopedic sports theorizing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete OR, no encyclopedic value whatsoever. R.T. 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A merge isn't a bad idea, but there seems to be enough coverage of the worst to first, first to worst pattern that an independent article can be justified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was unreferenced, but that's easily fixed by adding references such as "Curse Of NFC South Hits Saints" by Ira Kaufman, The Tampa Tribune September 18, 2007 http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/18/180033/sp-curse-of-nfc-south-hits-saints1/accessed 12/31/08ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also see that this "curse" is discussed on a number of fan chat sites. But the only ref I could find that meets WP:RS is the Tampa story you cite above. If there were one or two more such news sources, I'd change my vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that the article now has a ref from Bleacher Report, which I've never heard of but apparently is affiliated with CBS Sports. Hmm. Anyway, I've categorized the article with Category:National Football League lore in the meantime. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the article could use some tidying, it's now clear to me that there are sufficient WP:RS to show that this is a legitimate part of National Football League lore. (In my defense, as a Montreal NFL fan, the NFC South is the division I know least about!) I'll help with some clean up on the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've formatted the refs and added Category:Sports-related curses, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- with Shawn in Montreal's improvements, the article passes muster. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment- as an aside, i swear i remember seeing something about this on ESPN.com. I could be wrong on that though.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to National Football Conference South Division and mention there. I'm not seeing why people really need a full article to understand this topic. It's a few (recent) years of nearly trivial coincidence. --Rividian (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that may be the best solution. I'd change my vote -- again -- and support a merge to the main conference article. I see a lot of the content is there, albeit without the references, which should be imported. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but this "curse" isn't going to go on forever. And the rationale for a separate article is likely to diminish with time.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One year at a time Nostradamus, one year at time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. There are no such thing as curses, it's just a coincidence. You could find them throughout sports, they don't all deserve articles here. Delete this crap.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there ARE curses, by the mere fact that people believe in them. Just ask the Red Sox. No, not all of them deserve articles, but this one has media coverage--surely you are familiar with Bleacher Report? They mentioned it three times in 2008--voila. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with what User:Chrisjnelson said its complete fake crap--Yankees10 03:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If the curse was a popular term, than maybe. But this is entirely OR. I've never seen it popularized in the press, which makes it a creation of the creating user.  Pats 1  T /C  03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The coincidence has been discussed in the media, but I've rarely (if ever) seen it called a curse. Regardless, this kind of coincidence is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. A mention on the conference's or division's page at best.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and, the coincidence didn't happen this year. So now what we have is an article talking about a coincidence that happens...except when it doesn't. Brilliant.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Question: What is this supposed to be?--  Iamawesome  800  04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm a bit confused--there's both a curse and a blessing? Anyway, the individual sections are actually pretty well referenced, and yes, on ESPN they have mentioned it. OK, so it's completely ridiculous, and it doesn't work this year, but the sources given use the phrase (and discuss the blessing), so it's not OR and it's notable, even if only in the way paranormal folks and ufologists are notable. Drmies (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because something is referenced and has been mentioned by ESPN doesn't make it notable enough to be in the encyclopedia.► Chris Nelson Holla! 08:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And what if it meets WP:N? Is it going to be worthy if enough editors like the topic? Drmies (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a sourced, discussed phenomena. A lot of the argument seems to center on whether or not the "curse" is real.  I think that's besides the point.  What it IS is a documented historical coincidence, which is of a long enough duration to be notable.  Belief in curses is completely irrelevant to this discussion. matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--The argument for deletion seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is that the article include secondary sources that establish the notability of the curse. --Jmundo (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument is not whether or not some of us like it, and it's not whether or not the curse is real. I'm well aware that as long as it's documented, the mere topic could be notable regardless of whether or not there's any actual validity to it. However, as an avid follower of the NFL (and I know most fans would agree) the pattern has not be given enough attention to accumulate notability. It's just an amusing statistical pattern that has occasionally been mentioned in the media because that's what they do. It doesn't mean it's particularly relevant. Not to mention, since the pattern was broken this year, it's highly likely the mentions will become very infrequent to nonexistent.► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:25, 4 January 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.