Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Steve Balboni

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 of the debate was Delete, after careful consideration of all comments made below. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse of Steve Balboni

Six hits on Google, article is obviously made-up rubbish. Interesting rubbish, but still rubbish (and also fails WP:NOR). BoojiBoy 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't all "curses" one way or another "made-up." They're not supposed to be cases of "hard journalisism." Curses for the most part are centered on theories and speculation (e.g. some supernatural force) for why certain things happen to a specific person or organization. TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Update... I get about 663. All depends on how you search. A few sports magazines have written about this.SallyB 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please to not forget the quotes. BoojiBoy 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Using quotes restricst your search too much. There's tons of other variations for the name. Retropunk 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete one more for the road. --djrobgordon 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What you guys said - Richfife 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Poor KC Royals...delete! - Missvain 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an attempt to emulate the Curse of the Bambino. Is it supposed to be funny or serious?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and also Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ted 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Please. - Kookykman|(t)e
• Keep? This was a curious trend in baseball SallyB 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It definitely is a curious trend, but it's A) not a curse, B) has nothing to do with Steve Balboni, and C) most importantly, the term is not documented. It is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. BoojiBoy 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A couple things to say but I'll keep it to two. I'd dispute the original research claim and at what does original research become accepted fact. This was an easily verfiable trend. Second, the name is fitting of something so light-hearted. Let's not try to find too much meaning in sport.
• Keep ESPN link at least gives some legitimacy Retropunk 05:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The ESPN link is the article in which the term was coined, tongue-in-cheek. The article is actually poking fun at the preponderance of new curses. WP is not for things made up on ESPN.com one day. --djrobgordon 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Droll, but made up by blogger Rany Jazayerli. -- GWO
• Keep. The article clearly is not original research, but the product of an ESPN column.--M@rēino 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All the incidents are unsourced - no place in WP for this. BlueValour 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above.--Aldux 16:13, 21 June 2006 (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.