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.
Delete - non-notable neologism. Used on a few blogs by one journalist (Alex Thomson) by a handful of sports journalists, no evidence of widespread or notable use. At most, it should be redirected to Glossary of association football terms.GiantSnowman 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we should have an article on the phrase "It's unbelievable Jeff!"? GiantSnowman 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
heh. I was commenting on the inaccuracy of your statement, as you were incorrect on the extent of the usage. Agreed that this does not confer notability in itself, but only if the concept the usage denotes is notable for other reasons: which I argue it is. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified my first comment. GiantSnowman 09:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
slightly better, but still untrue: neither Thomson nor Hassan are sports journalists, but mainstream journalists. This takes the term out of the area of non-notable sports neologism, and into the area of GNG. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly needs some work but has four decent refs. to begin with. Dalliance (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I started the page). Needs more work, certainly. Agreed that title could be misleading: moved page to clarify. All citations are to reliable sources: major mainstream news outlets (thus meeting WP:IRS ) or, in Alex Thomson's case, the blog of the chief correspondent of Channel 4 News, part of ITN (he actually refers to 'succulent lamb' Wikipedia page in the third reference given!). Several more references of this kind could be given, and I'll improve the page when I get the time. Certainly in the Scottish/UK context, this phrase is widely-known and used in the context of football and journalism, with regard to the administration and liquidation of Rangers, a major ongoing topic with its own page. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the page move; partly because there is no need to disambiguate, and secondly because you should not really move articles while an AFD is ongoing. GiantSnowman 08:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Highly questionable that this is a notable enough subject to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a list or dictionary of neologism, especially when its barely notable in the context of an encyclopaedic context.BletheringScot 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Has anyone read the article this comes from? It's hilarious and way beyond parody. I'm only surprised Traynor was able to file his copy, having apparently clambered into Murray's rectal cavity. The fact that the "new era" being trumpeted consisted of industrial-scale cheating and, ultimately, the death of the club, makes it even more ridiculous. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real evidence of widespread use. yes, the article has a few references, but that seems to be it in terms of significant uses of the phrase. Redirect to glossary possible, but not sure there is any real evidence that this phrase has ever actually been used outside of the articles reffed. Certainly not common football parlance. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. a google search for 'succulent lamb journalism' has over four million hits. I can't claim to have checked them all! There will be much duplication, etc. However, I have reviewed the first fifty pages of results and the vast majority refer to the subject of the page in question. one or two were about recipes, of course :) Now, many of these are blog posts etc which are not reliable sources. However, I have citations which I'll add when I have the time from the Daily Mail, The Irish Post, the Irish Examiner etc. It may not be common football parlance in your country, but it is in mine. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits mean nothing, see WP:GHITS. I've just Googled myself ("About 25,500,000 results (0.35 seconds)") - so by your notability standards am I deserving of an article? GiantSnowman 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood my comment. Let me explain. Look at the context: I was responding to a claim that the phrase has never "actually been used outside of the articles reffed". I have demonstrated that claim to be false. I'm glad you agree with my comment that google hits in themselves do not confer notability. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the phrase "succulent lamb" get used on fan sites, forums, blogs etc.? Yes. Does it appear in widespread use among legitimate journalists and websites? No. Is it notable? No. GiantSnowman 19:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the concept has been used by "legitimate journalists and websites" (and other major mainstream news outlets such as newspapers and UK national news broadcasts) is beyond dispute. Rather, the disagreement seems to be how widespread this usage is. I argue that the usage is widespread enough to be notable: you disagree. Perhaps it would be useful if you could quantify what 'widespread' means to you. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Cracking goal" has been used by "legitimate journalists and websites" and yet does not have an article. I wonder why? C679 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could do with a repurposing (under a less derogatory title) as an article on the Scottish football media. I'm inclined to believe that at least some mention of the subject (from the point of view of Speirs's original article on it) is worthy of some encyclopedic treatment here, but not as a standalone article. And the present mess is plainly intended to be as derogatory as possible to the people in question, such as by introducing Trainor as a Rangers official when the piece in question was released fourteen years prior. If it can't be repurposed it should be deleted as ONEEVENT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be specific about what is derogatory about the title, or the content? Nothing in it is remotely derogatory. ONEEVENT is not appropriate as the usage spans from 1998-2013. Expansion as an article about Scottish football media (or the creation of a separate one under that title) may be a good idea, but deleting an article because another one should exist is bizarre. Also I refer you to Wikipedia:AGF . The claim that the text is "plainly intended to be as derogatory as possible" is incorrect: I can assure you I had no such intention. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It strongly implies that the parties in question are basically supplicants, especially when used (as is common in social media, if not in reliable sources) as a direct title. The usage is not "1998-2013": it consists of one example in 1998, along with a low level of non-notable use in the intervening years, and then a resurgence in 2012 relating entirely to the coverage of the Rangers administration. As for AGF, the current article is a flagrant coatrack; we would be better served deleting it entirely than leaving it in place while pontificating as to where it may be redirected. As such, I'd expect a closing admin to delete it unless it's substantially reworked during the AfD period; should someone subsequently wish to repurpose it they need only ask for undeletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Succulent' is not a synonym for 'supplicant', although the words sound similar. I did move the article to create a clearer title, but the move was reversed. I'm coming round to the opinion that it would be better served as part of a 'Scottish football media' page. You are incorrect to state it's a coatrack and provide no evidence to support your claim: all the content is directly related to the subject, with clear citations to reliable sources. If you are implying I have a prejudicial or biased interest in the subject, you are incorrect. You are also incorrect to expect an admin to delete it, as clearly consensus has not been reached here. Relisting or keeping is the correct course of action. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementary: if the concept has been refuted or defended by a reliable source, that POV should be included to provide balance. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't confuse "succulent" with "supplicant": "lambs" (as used when the epithet is directed, as "succulent lambs", at the press corps) was the part I was referring to. But in any case, this article is primarily a reaction to the 2012 resurgence, and serves at the moment as a coatrack for the media's coverage of that event. I'd like to avoid accusations of personal bias (if there's anything to be established by the incident in question, it's that reactionary accusations of bias are inevitable when discussing the subject), but the end result is that this article doesn't have a neutral tone and that we are not obliged to retain it in its present form simply for the sake of a head-count at AfD. In the interim it can be trivially userfied if anyone wants to work on it. As for the addendum, I'm not sure that "the concept" is particularly clearly defined (close, even deferential, attention to powerful sources is endemic to many areas of the media), except for in the present intimation that Jim Traynor was all but working for Rangers in his years before becoming a member of staff, which again even if well-supported would not appear to be grounds for a standalone article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's slightly clearer, thanks. The term "lambs" or "succulent lambs" is not present anywhere in the article or title- nor should they be- so I'm not sure why you mention it though. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (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.