Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticky wicket

Sticky wicket

Sticky wicket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a WP:DICDEF and WP:EXAMPLEFARM. The sources are entirely primary, proving nothing that "this work uses the term", and not discussing the term at length. Tone is utterly informal and unencyclopedic ("where there is no option you can take which is necessarily a good one"). If there is an article potential here, then WP:TNT is required. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep It was a very poor article but I've started amending and expanding it today. Needs more referencing, but I think you can already see that it's far more than a dicdef and example farm. Perhaps think of it this way: the cricket phenomenon is far more complex, interesting and encyclopedic than the dicdef of how the term is used as a metaphor in everyday speech. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep not a dicdef, not an example farm. If the tone displeases, improve. No need for TNT. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol. To be fair to the nominator, it was really really awful: ([1]). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep yes the version nominated was crap, but improvements are already being made. And it does pass WP:GNG as sources exist out there about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep 'Tone' is not a valid deletion reason. And a simple WP:BEFORE search would have provided the nominator with the RS available. And prevented this sticky wicket :D. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)