Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamparding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamparding

This article was prodded, but User:Dutchkop wrote a reason for keeping on the article (much like is sometimes seen with hangon). I'm interpreting this as a deprod attempt and listing it here. The original prod reason was 'protologism' (by User:RHaworth), and the 'deprod' reason was 'I feel that this reason is not a good reason to delete this creation on Wikipedia. As PROTOLOGISM is itself a new word (only created a month ago) and LAMPARDING has been referenced to a valid news media article and needs time and debate before it can be deleted.' (by User:Dutchkop). Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That argument is wrong on at least one point: "protologism" has been around for over a year and a half.

    The article purports to name a play in football. The football club magazine article that it cites is the sole association of this name with this specific play that appears to exist anywhere, and one of only 3 occurrences of this protologism that I can find. This is not something that has demonstrably entered the corpus of human knowledge. original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete Second use reference of the word has been added and further examples of use of the word at the FIFA World Cup in 2006.
  • Delete. Neologism, only coined today apparently. Batmanand | Talk 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism with no citation of reliable sources about the term, as required by WP:NEO. GRBerry 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This article should be deleted on the basis of Protolgism as it has been in use since 16/10/04 as referenced in the article itself. The word "Lamparding" has been commmonly used by football fans of the Premiership since this point.The Grinch 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Liverpool FC website isn't really a fair source for Chelsea FC players.
  • Delete not enough sources, not high-enough quality sources. Melchoir 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The association between Lampard and scoring via deflections is well known throughout English football, it was only a matter of time before a term such as 'Lamparding' would come into common 'footie' parlance. Also the use of the players name in such an instance has precedence in such cases e.g. The Ossie Ardiles flick or the Cruyff turn. Gerrardsitchyear 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The term now has a second reference point [1] along with a second (and less demeaning meaning) "thinking outside the box" freddies_dead
  • Do Not Delete The term is in common use in the English Language, and within the English media. There is no basis for removal and is a specific reference77,78,81,84,05 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete There is also further precedence in the term "Pele Kick" which is the over head or "bicycle kick" The Grinch 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete: A person is entitled to his thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.174.124 (talk) .

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.