Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticky wicket

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The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky wicket

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep should be readily expandable and sourceable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thanks to Dweller and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for their work on it today. It has both specific and general meanings and is clearly notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good job fixing the problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and congrats to those that have improved the article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the nominator for bringing the article to attention, and to those who fixed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.