Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sledging (cricket)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
Sledging (cricket)
- Sledging (cricket) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete. The article is a collation of
]- Strong Keep - those who live outside Australia and Britain probably don't realise how much of an issue this has been. Sledging has been the lead story on the news on many occasions. Cricketers have been suspended over racially-based sledges and this has been a big issue for sports in Australia. The article needs to be verified, admittedly (though we don't need all of those tags; the point has been made, guys). - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I live in Britain and support cricket. I also know several Australians who follow cricket. Nobody I know thinks of so-called "sledging" as anything more or less than competitors (in all sports) mouthing off in the heat of the moment. Your points are your own POV and you are exaggerating the topic by giving it the guise of an "issue". It is not an issue and certainly is not a "lead story", though the controversy between Singh and Symonds did receive some brief attention from the media. But any mention of even this incident should be restricted to their respective articles and/or the relevant tour/series article. Do we have an article about every argument that takes place in football when one player or manager badmouthes another? WP would exhaust its capacity!
- I don't see anything about players/managers abusing each other in Category:Australian rules football culture where I'd have thought the "practice" was much more likely. Perhaps it just isn't notable enough to be included? Same should apply to cricket.
- In any case, and more importantly, how do you justify "strong keep" for an article that flagrantly breaches ]
- Keep Sledging is a notable part of the game. However, this article is a car-wreck - does it hold the record for the most cite tags?! Additional note to closing admin' It looks like all those tags were added by the nom after the AfD tag was added. This looks to me like forcing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to add weight to the deletion. It needs cleaning up, rather than deletion. I've added some refs for the Singh/Symonds affair. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So-called sledging is anything but "a notable part of the game". Sportsmen shouting abuse at each other occurs in virtually all sports and cricket is no different, so why is a common every game occurrence singled out for "notability" in cricket? As for additional tags placed "after the AfD tag", it is legitimate to update the article during the AfD not only to improve it but also to highlight what is wrong with it. In fact, the AfD and the cleanup tags were all inserted at the same time, although the article might have been saved a few times during the process. Your contention that I am trying to "add weight" is splitting hairs and making something out of nothing. The point is that the article is appalling and even you admit it needs cleaning up at least. BlackJack | talk page 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Can be salvaged and turned into a decent article. Needs a bit of research and work rather than a ridiculous number of maintenance tags.--Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain how a collation of WP:TRIVIA can be turned into a "decent article". Where is the research to take place that will verify all the dubious hearsay based on perceived stereotypes? BlackJack | talk page 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The dubious information can and should be removed. The article as it stands is poor but it has potential to be improved using articles such as this, and there's plenty from a Google News search.--Michig (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain how a collation of
- Strong keep. Very well known cricketing term, very widely used in the media. Easily meets both ]
- Comment. Per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep. Notable term and more than a dictdef. Needs cleanup and additional sources not deletion. Qwfp (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep of course, the issue is a significant one in cricket which has attracted a great deal of media coverage; I found these within a couple of minutes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] While it's true[citation needed] that the article could use a little tidying up,[citation needed] plastering every clause[citation needed] of every sentence[citation needed] with a [citation needed] tag doesn't help the nominator's case at all.[citation needed] Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn as clearly the consensus is going to be to keep but cleanup the article. Thanks to everyone who contributed although I disagree with some of your points and I think you have all overlooked the
]- 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.