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 keep‎. Possible renames can be discussed on the article talk page. LizRead!Talk! 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm just not sure how this merits an article per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think the terminology passes
WP:GNG either. Primary argument is INDISCRIMINATE, however.
Paul Vaurie (
talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Reluctant keep: Sources cited appear to be non-trivial and reliable (some of them, anyway). I concur that WP doesn't need an article about every idea anyone has ever had but that isn't the standard around here.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - sourcing seems to be sufficient to show notability. I might instead suggest a rename to e.g.
2–0 lead in sports or similar?
GiantSnowman 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - per above. Clear topic of imterest with sourc.es Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Article clearly demonstrates notability.
TheKip 00:28, 25 September 2023 (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.
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 keep‎. Possible renames can be discussed on the article talk page. LizRead!Talk! 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm just not sure how this merits an article per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think the terminology passes
WP:GNG either. Primary argument is INDISCRIMINATE, however.
Paul Vaurie (
talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Reluctant keep: Sources cited appear to be non-trivial and reliable (some of them, anyway). I concur that WP doesn't need an article about every idea anyone has ever had but that isn't the standard around here.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - sourcing seems to be sufficient to show notability. I might instead suggest a rename to e.g.
2–0 lead in sports or similar?
GiantSnowman 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - per above. Clear topic of imterest with sourc.es Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Article clearly demonstrates notability.
TheKip 00:28, 25 September 2023 (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.