Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2–0 lead is the worst lead

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 keep‎. Possible renames can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2–0 lead is the worst lead

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm just not sure how this merits an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think the terminology passes WP:GNG either. Primary argument is INDISCRIMINATE, however. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Ice hockey. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep: Sources cited appear to be non-trivial and reliable (some of them, anyway). I concur that WP doesn't need an article about every idea anyone has ever had but that isn't the standard around here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources are now dead links or were self published, but the remainder include reliable outlets and show this meets GNG. Sure it's a cliché and we don't need articles about every phrase (e.g. if it could be a glossary entry), but this one cuts across multiple sports, has sources in multiple languages, and includes refutations of its premise. That seems worth having a short article about. The nomination seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything that falls under INDISCRIMINATE. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing seems to be sufficient to show notability. I might instead suggest a rename to e.g. 2–0 lead in sports or similar? Giant Snowman 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Clear topic of imterest with sourc.es Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article clearly demonstrates notability. The Kip 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2023 (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.