Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide or surrender


 * 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. Page may be redirected at editorial discretion. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Slide or surrender

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Pure unsourced WP:OR, lacking significance/importance anyway. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, I know nearly nothing about baseball or softball. But a quick Google search turns up a fair number of references, indicating both that the term is used and that it is debated.  Certainly this article needs sources, and the OR/POV needs to be removed.  But I think that there is, at a minimum, information here that could be merged (into Softball? Little League??), or could possibly survive as a stand-alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems this belongs in Glossary of softball, but that doesn't exist yet. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was given a grand total of one minute after article creation before being nominated for deletion. Give an article a chance or at least more than 1 goddamn minute. This is also one of the fastest ways to drive away new editors that registered just two hours ago. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, calm down, will you? Anyway, redirect to Softball. After a Google search, I couldn't find that this technique has notability on its own. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I waited one minute or six hours, it's still an apparently original research article without any sources. Should we wait another day? Two days? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have a simple request to please not make new users completely unwelcome the second they make their first contribution the site. You don't have to 'wait' to question an article's importance, but this is something that needed a message on the user talk page and a prod instead of a +1 brownie point toward the next barnstar. Vodello (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what we're doing. And anyway, WP:DEADLINE can work both ways. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This term is simply not notable on its own. Spanneraol (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As it was brand new, I waited a little while to see if it would be built up before responding. It hasn't been.  Delete if it stays as is. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (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.