Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Illustrate Cover Jinx

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 without prejudice against a merge if a consensus later forms to do so. However, I'm not seeing a consensus for it on the basis of this discussion. — TKD::Talk 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx

Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article full of OR which was recently removed by me from the magazine's article for the same reason. Will ^(talk) 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G7, page's author blanked page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Currently in violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but this jinx has been reported countless times in the media. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and reopened this, since the author only tagged the article because he meant to create it at Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx instead of Sports Illustrate Cover Jinx. --- RockMFR 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced OR. There is considerable repetition from SI's own web site bit not quite enough to be a blatant copyvio. Dbromage [Talk] 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Remove the synthesis (i.e. unsourced connection of cover appearances and notable losses), but this is notable enough that the magazine itself has gotten in on the joke. It's endlessly discussed in the media.--Dhartung | Talk 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but with major work. There's no question that the subject is notable, as it has been written about by countless newspaper and magazine writers (myself included) to one extent or another. But this needs more citations, and likely a rewrite. Realkyhick 03:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The term seems mildly notable, but it is synthesis to put every athlete who got injured after they appeared on an SI cover. Remove that information, and this article is basically empty Corpx 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be a synthesis, but it's not one that originated on Wikipedia. As such, it's not inherently OR. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a 3rd party source making the synthesis of the SI jinx to "US national soccer team (being) eliminated from the 1994 FIFA World Cup by Brazil". Almost all the entries on the list are of similar synthesis which is not attributed to anyone Corpx 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to do so, any entries that can't be sourced can be removed, it's the *subject* of the page that matters, not content like that. You do realize that a statement like that can simply be removed and the rest of the article will still be valid? FrozenPurpleCube 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If all such examples are removed, the article will be empty, save for the first line Corpx 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if you presume you can't find any sources whatsoever for any of them. I wouldn't assume that at all, but would instead recommend diligently looking for sources that do mention them as a jinx. FrozenPurpleCube 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof to find references should be on the editors who want to re-add the material, when the synthesis is contested Corpx 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I see no reason to jump to removal, since it's not especially controversial material, and there are reasonable sources like: [1] In any case, contesting the content is different from contesting the topic. Can you deny that this topic has been the subject of significant coverage? FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is notable, but I think it can be covered sufficiently with a one line mention in the main SI article, and without un-cited synthesis. Corpx 06:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed all instances of un-cited synthesis from the article and looking at its current state, I'd say Merge back to SI. Corpx 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is something that has [2] well, been the subject of a segment on CNN among other things. [3] gets enough hits. I'm sorry, but this is clearly a subject which can be sourced. Therefore, it doesn't need to be OR. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and remove the SYNTH per everyone above. The article isn't great, but the subject is undeniably notable. -- Kicking222 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Would like to see the article be more an explanation of the phenomenom and references to it in other media. Many of the examples are unverifiable, perhaps there are some instances of the affected athletes referring to the 'curse' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 05:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a great article, but definitely a notable topic. Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very well known phenomenon in popular culture. Could use some fixups though. --Djsasso 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Really doesn't need its own article. The only reference is very self-referencial, and it reads like an OR essay. I have heard the term used on TV and such, but it does not needs its own article. Dannycali 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The jinx is notable, and it deserves a better article than this. 65.207.127.12 00:06, 30 August 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.