Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Juiced ball" theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Snowball keep, and a very obvious one at that; the patroller who tagged this for deletion actually !voted keep in the discussion too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: After this AfD was closed, the page has been moved to Juiced ball theory and the redirect deleted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Juiced ball" theory

"Juiced ball" theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. A newpage patroller tagged this article for deletion. As the sole author so far, my opinion on the matter does not need to be stated. :) This is most definitely a notable topic, and I'd very much like the chance to prove it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I did not notice that the article was under construction, so I tagged it too soon. This is a worthy subject and should not be deleted. DS2434 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A {{hangon}} would have worked just fine--I would have declined the speedy myself but I was 30 seconds too late... I read a lot about this many years ago, so the topic has some merit, but I could see that this might be better served as a section in Baseball (ball). — Scientizzle 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously a worthy subject for an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable theory, and it seems that every major source agrees on the theory's name. However, I have issues about using quotes in the article title, but that's something that can be fixed with a routine page move. But to avoid confusion, I will wait for closure of this AfD before moving the page. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of sources to write a lengthy article about this, maybe even longer than Baseball (ball), which would give it undue weight. –Pomte 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are over half a dozen reliable sources already cited discussing this theory, and more could be found. *** Crotalus *** 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. That'll teach you not to use an {{underconstruction}}!!--12 Noon 2¢ 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly seems notable enough. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I was leery that there would be enough material to support this, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources are there, the exact term is used, and the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If kept, move it so the quote marks are not in the article name. Otto4711 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well sourced, notable subject. matt91486 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and next time read the instructions as I'm sure {{hangon}} and a discussion with DS2434 (talk · contribs) would have given you at least some time to add more than one source (and properly format them). I wonder if the wording on something has changed; there seems ot have been a recent spike in editors disputing speedies by escalation to AFD. Anyway, I think tagging an article for speedy that has an actual reference just 15 minutes after creation is nuts, even worrisome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Request Seeing as the speedy tagger (DS2434) has opined as "keep" and the above WP:SNOW, would a passing third party please close this discussion as one big misunderstood "keep". Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 13:52, 4 January 2008 (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.