Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Bowls To The Left

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 merge to

Mitchell Johnson (cricketer) . Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

He Bowls To The Left

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best this should be a paragraph in Johnson's article. Not notable. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per
~~WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable third party (and some international) sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply
]

The two refs that mention the chant in detail are both written by a member of the barmy army, the supporters group that created the chant. Not really independent. This article is currently in a DYK prep area witha hook that I think is inappropriate and against our NPA/BLP principles. The-Pope (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter non-notable. Receives no reliable third party coverage. Worthy of a mention perhaps in the main player article, but a chant directed at one player based on one Test series in one year is not notable, no matter how many pro-Pom sites want to mention it to razzle the Aussies, or how often CricInfo includes it in its interesting curios section. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that several national newspapers in the UK and Australia are not reliable 3rd party coverage? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does every chant about a sportsman require its own article? Plenty of chants receive media coverage because the player gets media coverage. That doesn't make the chant worthy of its own article IMO. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons given above. JH (talk page) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Partial source list for rationale. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fans have long history of sledging, Geelong Advertiser (Australia) - May 20, 2011, Length: 241 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) RUSSELL Robertson's campaign to stamp out unruly crowd behaviour at local footy matches has created a big stir around Geelong. The former Melbourne AFL star, who is currently coaching St Joseph's, wants fans to dob in a yobbo if they hear offensive language coming from over the boundary. It prompted In & Under to recall some famous incidents of sports stars copping unwanted abuse from crowds. Unfortunately,...
  - It's Waugh time, Jones urges Aussie selectors - Sport ASHES DIARY, Independent, The (London, England) - January 8, 2011 Length: 475 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Aussie cricket chiefs can expect plenty of advice over the next few weeks. Former Baggy Green batsman Dean Jones, who scored a legendarily gutsy 210 in intense heat during a Test at Madras in 1986 (and ended up on a saline drip as a result), has got the ball rolling with the suggestion that they turn to Steve Waugh. "Cricket Australia needs to sign Steve Waugh as the head coach of the Australian cricket team immediately," Jones says. "Australian...
  - Barmy Army enjoy chance to blow their own trumpet Times, The (London, England) - January 8, 2011 Length: 433 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) It was not possible to get a precise figure because entry was free on the fifth morning, but Cricket Australia estimated that more than 17,000 watched England's momentous win at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Unsurprisingly, only a few hundred were Aus
  - A WEEK AT A TIME Weekend Australian (Australia) - January 8, 2011 Length: 881 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) England's run of success not over NOW our Ashes shame is complete, the AWAAT team has decided to bow in humility, man up and accept that the sporting world has changed forever. It is now a fait accompli that England will win the next soccer World Cup. It is also inevitable an Englishman will win the Wimbledon tennis tittle and that the Land of Hope and Glory will produce a surfing world champion. The least we at AWAAT can do is to salute and dedicate...
  - Going Barmy as a one-man army - - The Ashes Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - January 7, 2011 Length: 497 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) TO TRULY understand how low Australia have sunk, you need to sit in the middle of the Barmy Army decked out in canary yellow cricket attire. The reaction of the Barmy Army is spooky. Instead of pointing and singing in your face, they don't even notice you are there. Worse, they seem to take pity. This was the horrible predicament I found myself in while watching the Barmy Army soak up the action from Bay 11 at the SCG yesterday. For the first time in more than 20...

None of these sources even seem to mention the chant. I'm assuming they must later on in the articles, but a passing mention is a long way from significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant breach of

WP:BLP at the very least. This sort of pis-taking is funny at an Ashes game when Johnson is actually bowling but it is entirely inappropriate as an article on WP. Would the site allow articles called Ole Whisky Nose or Shrek (hair transplant) to wind up the MUFC supporters? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If it received enough coverage then yes. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - gets enough press coverage, e.g. Times of India & The Australian, in addition to those already in the article. Created by
The Pope, if I didn't know better I'd suspect that was a wind-up- Basement12 (T.C) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

those two articles are the same AFP report published by two papers. User names have nothing too do with this. Apart from the articles written by one of the chant's creators all the articles are about the effect of the chant on Johnson, and as such it only deserves to be a paragraph in the Johnson article, not a stand alone article. No independent notability. We don't make articles about every topic that appears in the tabloid press.The-Pope (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the
Sydney Morning Herald are tabloids? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Let's just keep reading everything completely literally, shall we? And given the coverage in The Mail amounts to online commentary and a "that was the week that was" column I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it providing the required significant coverage. The other coverage is all about Johnson with a passing mention of the chant. No independent notability. The-Pope (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG. Of course, this means Waugh... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Jack. extra999 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to some of the claims above, no one has actually provided significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the chant does not meet GNG. Added to this are the obivous BLP concerns, which make it a clear delete in my eyes. Ridiculous that anyone thought putting "Mitchell Johnson's bowling is shite" on the main page wasn't a BLP vio. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a couple of book sources (one of them Wisden) but I still ask, are UK and Australian national newspapers not reliable 3rd party sources? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a newspaper article written by one of the people who made up the chant can be considered independent, even if the article was carried in a newspaper that normally would be considered independent. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' into article on
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given this, I think that this information would be far better placed either in Johnson's article, or in a longer list of Barmy Army chants, with a mention at Johnson's article. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - per what Harrias has said. Perhaps create a "popular culture" or similarly titled section in his article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A couple of sentences in the Mitchell Johnson article would fit the exact same purpose.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – I'm sure I could construct a well-sourced, well-written article on Nicki Minaj's backside, but that doesn't mean it should be included on Wikipedai. I ♦A 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic shite. (and BLP concerns). Moondyne (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whatever the general notability guideline might say. Guidelines are our servants, not our masters, so we shouldn't defer to them when basic common sense and human decency indicate that an article should be deleted. This chant might have been funny in one or two matches when Johnson was bowling rather waywardly, but the joke and its trivial ephemeral coverage are over now.
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Not quite, one of the sources in the article is quite recent. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
Manchester United chant called That Boy Ronaldo. This is a football chant being sung at the cricket. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge some to Mitchell Johnson who will remain famous long after the temporary notoriety of this particular chant will be long forgotten. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I see how this is going to go so just to make sure that the content doesn't go to waste, I'll support a merge to Mitchell Johnson. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to indicate it has independent notability as a song, making merge inappropriate and deletion even less appropriate. It's not a very good article, but it's not a very good song. NPA does not apply to our dispassionate reporting of verifiable things, and BLP does not proscribe it either. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.