Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two goal 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two goal lead[edit]

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

completely non-notable independently of a particular sport. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're going to have articles for every potential scoreline? (That was a joke, please nobody start articles for those) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject matter is quite interesting, but the article suffers from some fatal flaws. First, and foremost, to the extent that the claims are verifiable, they ought to be discussed in an article about the theory, not a specific application. On the chance that someone is interested in that avenue, note that "Parisi Theory" is already established as a term, with an entirely different meaning. Second, the article has absolutely no references, despite hints that theoretical work has been done. Third, the description in the article while interesting is either Original Research and inadmissible, or an unreferenced summary of work that should be referenced. Third, the only support for the theory is highly anecdotal, consisting of two unreferenced examples. This theory easily lends itself to statistical analysis, but that work shouldn't be done in the article. It should be found elsewhere, or developed and published elsewhere, and then an article might be appropriate. At best, is some other article is written with appropriate title and references, it may be appropriate to redirect this title, on the chance that the best title for the alternative article wouldn't be the obvious search term. However, that shouldn't be considered until someone undertakes that article.--SPhilbrick T 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. This article appears to be original research and/or a hoax. The article purports to cite the research of Lewis Parisi into the ability of teams to defend a two goal lead -- but a Google search for that comes up with only this Wikipedia article and no other sources. It is unclear whether the "Lewis Parisi" mentioned in this article really exists or, if he does, whether he has actually done the research described in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up junk. I'd even dispute the point that Sphilbrick concedes above: the subject matter isn't interesting which is why there's no statistical analysis on the subject. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we really need this unreferenced rubbish? I would also say that it violates Wp:NOR, but that would be incorrect: Liverpool went 3-0 down before beating AC Milan in 2005. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed, this is a minor part of football and doesn't merit an article. Giant Snowman 12:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary article on non-notable subject. Article is unreferenced and appears to be a POV article to me. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 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.