Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (sports)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch (sports)[edit]

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

Contested prod; I agree with the prod reasoning - it's a dictionary definition with some random examples, and I see no scope for it to develop into a meaningful encyclopaedic entry; the selection of examples constitutes original research. Fits DICDEF well, I think. Chzz ► 07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This contains a brief and poorly-constructed definition, followed by a set of examples that range from trivial to outright incorrect. (Note that it was a vandal that contested the prod. Prod was my nomination.) TheFeds 07:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP under WP:NPA along with Choke_(sports) for unreferenced opinions of players mentioned. Edit history is almost exclusively IPs with short histories that are all edits of sport opinion articles. Even if that was all addressed, WP:NOTDIC and WP:SOAP Datheisen (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely OR, and I don't think it is particularly salvageable, other than to cut down to a mere dictionary definition. I can see the possibility of an article on clutchness in sports, but this ain't it. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand - I know, especially since Moneyball, that there’s been some debate on whether or not such thing as “the clutch” even exists, i.e. whether or not certain players perform appreciably better in “clutch” situations. There’s room here to expand on that. —Wiki Wikardo 12:18, 23 October 2009 (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.