Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy football


 * 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. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexy football

 * — (View AfD)

Notability in doubt. Poorly sourced (there is but one source that describes the term in its featured use). Seems like a personal opinion. Full of self references. May be a candidate for Wiktionary. No enough substance. Doesn't fit into existing universe of aricles on soccer. In short, a very starnge article on a very strange topic written in a starnge tone. Aditya Kabir 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Soccer; failing that, transwiki to somwhere. Moreschi 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge with Soccer. Akihabara 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non-notable and badly-defined term used by a single person, and is not an official term for the game. Therefore, I don't suggest merging it into Soccer. Instead, transwiki it to Wiktionary or the Wikiquote entry of Ruud Gullit.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge With soccer. I disagree with Michaelas, the term in used by more than one person (I have heard multiple commentators saying it), however I don't believe it warrants a separate article. TSO1D 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet it isn't an official type of Soccer and merging it with Soccer would be pointless as there are probably hundreds more similar terms invented by individuals.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki or Delete - per nom and the comments by Michaelas10 make sense. Jayden54 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not notable, and at best probably an opinion piece. --SunStar Nettalk 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see no reason to merge it into the football article. There are hundreds of words and terms out there that describes various playing styles. – Elisson • T • C • 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete just a naff term used to describe teams that use an exciting style of play, not really regarded as an especially serious term, and not really a recognised actual style of play in itself such as, for instance, total football ChrisTheDude 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. -- Wizardman 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete no enough sources to satisfy WP:NEO and thus keep here.-- danntm T C 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no substantial content to merge, it's just a 10-year-old neologism. Qwghlm 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - dictionary definition, no more no less. Don't even merge. - fchd 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no merge, laughing at the people who want to merge this to a redirect page. Punkmorten 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not good at all for transwiki. Don't merge with football (soccer); a very short reference on Ruud Gullit would be quite enough. --Angelo 22:54, 11 December 2006 (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.