Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Detroit

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of Detroit

Curse of Detroit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Cursecruft created by a sports broadcaster, not worthy of Wikipedia page. A whole lot of sports curses were deleted last year but this is a new one. No references cited. BoojiBoy 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 15#The Curse of King Clancy and many below. BoojiBoy 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. The "future" section says it all. YechielMan 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't hold a candle to 'Muldoon's Curse' or 'Curse of the Bambino'. GoodDay 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Extremely silly textbook case of WP:BULLSHIT. Are we required to have articles on every bit of nonsense some bored journalist hunting for copy invents?  RGTraynor  16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An off the cuff comment by a broadcaster given substance by a fan does not make a notable topic. Resolute 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per norm.
• Keep: As the writer of this article, I would like to offer an ultimatum: if the team that defeats Detroit during the playoffs doesn't make it to the finals, I will gladly accept the deletion of this article. Please keep this article for now in order to see if the Curse of Detroit actually exists... --PsychoJason 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Errr ... no; Wikipedia doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. We work on consensus on the merits rather than as a result of sports bets or Ron MacLean's unsupported say so in re: curses. No doubt there's also some combination in which the middle names of at least one female relative of each Columbus Blue Jackets stickboy spell out "666," but Wikipedia doesn't have articles about those things either.  RGTraynor  01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not crystal ball. That a team has lost early in the playoffs for a few years in a row hardly constitutes a curse, even if one commentator mentions it in passing. There are no reliable sources that would allow for proper attribution, and no evidence that the "Curse of Detroit" is used by anybody to describe the Red Wings failures. Even if the Wings lose to the Flames, it still would not constitute any evidence of any curse. Resolute 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still think you're all making a foolish mistake. Come June 2007, if the same scenario occurs again, I will make sure the article returns. Four years in a row, if that is the case, really merits an article. --PsychoJason 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per above. I think the word your looking for PsychoJason, is "bargain" as opposed to "ultimatum". An ultimatum would be "I will crush your petty organization if you refuse to keep my article", which I doubt you have the means or the will to do. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Small sample size is evidence of non-notability to me. SliceNYC (Talk) 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Still just coincidences at the moment...try again in a decade. Jmlk17 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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.