Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winning streak

Add links
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 no consensus‎. All of the individual sports mentions were removed from this article and then those edits were reverted to return to its current state. Rather than a quick renomination and replay of this AFD, I encourage interested editors to go to the article talk page to discuss which one of those options would serve readers/the project the best. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning streak[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Winning streak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:EXAMPLEFARM WP:LC listing that is more deserving of being listed on lists about individual leagues/championships than a standalone list. If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified deletion discussion lists
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article. You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and Conyo14 too. I'm not asking for a cleanup as winning streaks will always happen. I agree with Oaktree b, its best put it out of its misery rather than do something with it as most of those leagues has their own list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way too long for a list, I'd recommend breaking it out by sport/country/something, and using better inline citations. We don't need to list every streak that has ever happened, all in one extensive list of one-liners. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. [1], [2], [3], [4]. The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. — if this is the case, you should go do this yourself if you want to save it so bad. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCLEANUP. Me placing sources there shouldn't matter. The notability already exists. After this AfD, I'll change the article to match more of the terminology than make it just a list. It's not worth my time during an AfD though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs a clean up, but seems notable as a well-known term/concept. GiantSnowman 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that it is not notable as a well-known term/concept but c'mon, that list is pretty excessive, don't you think? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. You've acknowledged the concept is notable, so therefore it should not be deleted. GiantSnowman 19:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally meaningless to have a vast list of winning streaks from sports which are not directly comparable (eg a hurling streak of 21 games which took over four years to complete vs a baseball streak of 26 games which took less than a month). Records about streaks in specific sports should be on appropriate records articles for those sports, and if you strip those out from this article you are just left with a DICTDEF -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of winning streaks in sports, or possibly merge with List of winning streaks with {{main article}} in the respective sections. The concept of a winning streak in sports is well-covered, even in the broadest sense as covering all sports, see "The 33 best streaks in sports history". ESPN.com. 2013-03-28. Retrieved 2024-02-12., "Six of the Best: Winning Streaks". Sports Gazette. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2024-02-12., Majev, Brendan. "Untouchable: The Greatest Streaks in Sports". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. It clearly meets WP:NLIST, and whether or not a stricter set of criteria for inclusion should be applied is a separate issue from whether or not the article should be kept. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – Terminology inherent to various sports with encyclopedic content to be expanded. Svartner (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have nothing against the nomination, because it's reviewing the content on the article, however Winning streak as terminology can be a valid article. It's just the current article is dire. It needs a complete overhaul and stripping right back to the essence of the terminology. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above, though the article could do with some cleanup. Govvy raises good points. The Kip 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs cleanup per above. I believe List of winning streaks can be merged into this article, but AFD is not the place for such a discussion.
  • Merge with List of winning streaks. A paragraph on there explaining winning streaks is sufficient, and will help understanding of the topic. But this indiscriminate list is not at all encyclopedic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with ChrisTheDude above that a list like this should be by sport. Not only that, there should be context within each sport. This is unreadable as it stands and of no use to readers. Alleged notability is not a valid reason to keep such a mess. Batagur baska (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hot hand: this comes across as an unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, created by SYNTH of unrelated events loosely tied by the use of a term for which we already have a Wiktionary entry. While the individual items in the list are sourced, I see no source that ties them all together into a single cohesive topic. The proposed target addresses the phenomenon itself, without including a list of no encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the good reasons listed by editors above. When so many editors issue a Keep or Strong Keep comment there should be no question about closing this down and keeping the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When many of the Keep !votes are of the WP:ILIKEIT type, there absolutely is a question about deleting the article. There is no question about allowing this debate to run its full course. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been pointed out that sources exist for each of the entries. There is nothing wrong with "I like it" if sources exist for notability, which is, I think, all the many Keep editors are saying. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just defined WP:SYNTH - combining multiple sourced items into an agglomeration that isn't sourced. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was thinking of too. What are those keep voters thinking when they voted? don't they care that this list is getting out of control bloated? This is why I said its best to put it out of its misery. If this gets to a no concensus or keep verdict, this marks a new low point of Wikipedia's credibility. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per all keep voting editors above. Clearly notable topic. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I share the same views on rationale as others and don't wish to repeat it" isn't ILIKEIT, maybe come up with a rebuttal to some of the arguments first. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – at its core this is a WP:DICDEF followed by an indiscriminate collection of information which contravenes WP:NOTSTATS. Aspirex (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of a winning streak is absolutely a notable topic - WP:NOTCLEANUP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[5]], [[6]], as well as outside of sports [[7]]. Article needs some work and I share some concerns with the nom about the current state of the article, but as others have already noted, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I agree that List of winning streaks should likely be merged but that is for a different discussion. User:Let'srun 23:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim article to concept only, removing sports lists: A few points jump out at me:
  1. The concept of a "winning streak" is notable, as illustrated by sources presented by different editors in this discussion. I suspect that there are sufficient sources out there to avoid WP:NOTDICTIONARY.
  2. The trickier questions are:
a) whether Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, and
b) if so, whether that list should be at this article title.
I think some editors previously contributing to this discussion have cast !votes answering one but not both of these questions, which might render determining consensus difficult if we're talking across each other.
I'm ambivalent on question 2a, though I think it's generous to suggest that a list of longest-winning streaks will be maintained faithfully. But on question 2b, I definitely do not think that the list of winning streaks should be at this article title. My instinct is that Winning streak should be reserved to winning streaks as a concept, with some examples if necessary, while the current article's contents should be redistributed to List of winning streaks and similar articles. For this position, there is no real AfD !vote that suffices, because it's essentially a redistribution of contents away from the article. Whether those contents should be hosted on another page of the encyclopaedia is another question, and one we don't have to discuss at this AfD. Interested editors can retrieve those contents from the page history after a trim, and include elsewhere as appropriate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be an unhelpful exercise, but I've tried to understand previous contributors' views with this framework. This is my understanding of their positions from what they have explicitly said (feel free to amend if you disagree).
1. Is there notability beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY?
Yes: JPxG, Conyo14, GiantSnowman, Svartner, Govvy, The Kip, Das osmnezz, BeanieFan11, Let'srun and IgnatiusofLondon
No: Flibrigit, ChrisTheDude and Aspirex
2a. Should Wikipedia host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks?
Yes: Frank Anchor and Randy Kryn
No: SpacedFarmer, Oaktree b, ChrisTheDude, Govvy, The Kip, Joseph2302, Batagur baska, OwenX and Aspirex
2b. If Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, should it be at this article title?
Yes: has anyone taken this position explicitly?
No: Govvy, The Kip and IgnatiusofLondon
As the list suggests, editors seem to be discussing either 1 or 2a, but rarely both. The way towards consensus is probably if editors start engaging across the questions... IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean for 2a, I'm whatever. That's just semantics of the article name. Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep per subsequent article revisions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is too unclear. Giving it another try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - just get rid of all the waffle about swimming etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    — 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But obviously it needs clean up. Some of the suggestions in here for that are good ones, and while discussion for the clean-up should be at the listicle talk page, I will say that it at least needs a more indicative title, well-sourced expansion on the concept, and clear inclusion guidelines for the list. Anyway, since it's clearly not any more a dictionary entry than other sports terms, there has been no reason for deletion even provided in creating the nom and it should be a procedural close (or, at this point, a consensus-driven close) for "keep and go discuss improvements at talk". Kingsif (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this appears to be heading for no consensus which is keep by default. That's a pity. A perfectly good policy reason for deletion was given up front in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and if you pull the directory out it is just WP:DICDEF. To think of this another way, step back and consider readers of Wikipedia. How does this mishmash of editor curated disparate winning streaks serve a reader's information requirement? If they want to know the longest basketball winning streak, they'll look on a basketball page. If they want to know what a winning streak is, they will be better advised to check wiktionary. If they want to know the longest surf championship streak, longest tiddlywinks streak, or conkers, or dominoes, they are out of luck. This cannot be comprehensive and the list of editor chosen winning streaks fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable collection. This page is not a good fit for Wikipedia nor any encyclopaedia. It should go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your argument, the articles on hat-trick, penalty shoot-out, sports season - off the top of my head, among who knows how many others - should go because their primary purpose is to explain a sports concept. Not every article with such primary purpose, however, is a dictionary entry, and !voters should do well to know the difference between a simple definition and an article (or what could be an article) that has encyclopedic purpose for detailing e.g. the history of such concepts, their impact in sports, how they are perceived socially. Nobody is denying that the state of this listicle is awful, but it has potential to be good. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above keep comments. If you don't like the article (WP:IDONTLIKEIT?), clean it up (trim) or pass on reading it. The article can be rescued. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at all the votes, all the keep voters are circlejerking off each other with not much to say other than agreeing with each other whilst all the delete voters have more to say. I take this sum up sports fans. Circlejerking is the team sport for them when their favorite sport is at off season. If we were to ''clean it up (trim)'' then this will get reverted, telling editors to go to AfD, so here we are. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you have failed to come up with actual responses to !keep votes, none of which are circlejerking [because] their favorite sport is at off season, and while we're at it, all the !delete votes basically seem to agree with your non-reason nomination. Do you want your WP:CIVIL warning now or when you lie about and insult those who disagree with you next? Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern about bloat is already solved by the "Table of Contents". Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. Two valid points of view exist here (see my essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB), and since the Keep point-of-view has a solid number of experienced editors favoring it then it would have among readers as well. Readers come to the page either looking for either something in particular or just to browse to enhance their knowledge of the overall topic "Winning streaks". 46,000 have done so in the last year. Encyclopedic purpose is thus fulfilled by its existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. I can't. No sport that I'm interested in is listed. Neither can I see winning streaks in war, in casinos, computer games or anything else. Your rule of thumb essay is not policy. The policy reasons for deletion are clear, and I do not see any policy reasons for retaining this hot mess. I can add tiddlywinks and Fortnite, but editor curation of the list of winning streaks is WP:OR. I am not seeing any policy case for retention, and neither has anyone presented any sources that would show this or any listing would meet WP:LISTN. We can learn nothing by page hits. We do not know that any of those page hits were people satisfying their information requirement, and again, it is not at all clear how any information requirement is met by this. No one is saying there should be no mention of, say, the record basketball winning streaks - but if that is what people are searching for, they will find that and more and better relevant and targeted information on those pages rather than this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It covers most sports, which ones are missing? Winning streaks in casinos would be interesting, good idea (I don't know about winning streaks in wars, a concept for a short story though, Vonnegut would have hit it out of the park). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With an estimated 8,000 sports worldwide, it does not even come close to being comprehensive. And I see it does have some computer games, but it is missing a lot of those too. And dear, oh dear, it doesn't even have Scrabble. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be that comprehensive, most readers would look for the major sports. Maybe the first thousand or so (kidding). Scrabble, a good idea! Does it have a page for records? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs massive cleanup and formatting, but it serves a valid, interesting, and useful purpose and covers a term—and measure of achievement, if not legacy—that is active and well-established in the lexicon of modern sports throughout the world. This seems very obvious to me. Anwegmann (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT. Per Ignatius. Pare down to the basic concept supplemented with some of whichever examples are used in multiple RS that cover the concept broadly (not listicles). The bulk of the article should be sourced to these general-concept refs, with some sport-specific treatments of winning streaks addressed when BALASP. Lists of winning streaks should be in separate list articles by sport and linked from a list of lists page.
JoelleJay (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can discuss at the article's talk. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article significantly overhauled. Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible for me to have a stronger keep opinion now? Conyo14 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overhauled? You mean decimated with good faith edits. This relisted RfD, which should have been kept long ago, includes the 'Keep' comments added when this was a full article, and that is what has been judged in this RfD and not the "new" truncated version. Unless the Keep editors object this should be reverted back to the version that people here actually commented on. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Randy, but I'm still a strong keep. Conyo14 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the !keep votes indicate that work, including delistifying needed doing. It is not uncommon (and should definitely not be discouraged) for articles to be improved in the process of an AfD. A closer takes comments and the status of the article at the time of closing into account, so unless you think there is a majority !keep argument that the article as it was should be kept as it was, it would surely be counterproductive to not only suggest but actually try to enforce that articles at AfD shouldn't be improved after people have !voted. The fact it has been significantly changed has been noted here. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal of the list addresses many "Delete" editors' concerns. The list is still visible in page history should anyone wish to retrieve it and fashion something more appropriate from it, likely best suited in a different article. The question now can solely concern whether we are dealing with WP:DICDEF or not. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page, with the list included, is what editors were commenting Keep about. Should be reverted to that version. Without the list the page means little. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are one of what appears to be only two editors who indicated that you think the article should have an extensive list, and therefore you are involved. Your reversion to the pre-AfD version, besides reflecting basically just your own personal preference, is also setting that dangerous precedent I mentioned of discouraging improvement during the course of AfDs. I strongly suggest you self-revert based on the principles of being involved (that a user with an interest should not be unilaterally taking decisions favouring that interest). Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the list(s) have largely been moved to draft articles - or already existed at sport-specific records pages - and I had already started a discussion topic on the merits of standalone lists or not for them all at the winning streak article talk page. Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the core concept is a very notable term in sports. There should be more than enough sources to make an encyclopedia article. The list is unverifed and needs to go. Swordman97 talk to me 20:07, 4 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Winning_streak&oldid=1211883918"