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 delete. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse (sports)[edit]

Collapse (sports) (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)

Lacks notability, no logical basis for the article. Severe lack of sources. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is the same concept as "choke," but also the same as "loss of momentum" or any number of other linguistic formulations, and there would be no way to set up a sufficient number of redirects. Should there be an encyclopedia article on the concept of the sudden failure in sports alone of a team? Why not "surge" for the team winning? Why not "miracle ending" for the team coming from behind? The concept is bankrupt. As for the article, it's mainly a POV table of "notable" (i.e. famous to contributors) collapses in sports (that contributors follow). So, delete for dictdef, POV, and impossible to remedy (WP:TNT). Hithladaeus (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Fix: The concept of a collapse is distinct from choking because it takes place over an extended series of games or matches. The original chart was populated from a statical study of collapses, but was supposed to give color to the article as it was expanded. Places like 538 have written a lot about statistical analysis of team performance. The information is out there, but other Wikipedia users just haven't picked up on it yet beyond adding rather superfluous entries to the table. Again I want to ask why the only thing Wikipedia users seem able to do is nominate things for deletion instead of making the site better through addition.Sturmovik (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your refinement of "collapse" was not in the lede when I read the article. When a hitter in baseball gets a home run, is that because the pitcher failed or because the hitter succeeded? If a best of seven series has the Teddybears up 3-0, but the Lollipops take 4 in a row, is that a "collapse" or a "surge?" POV is absolutely integral to this concept in competitive sports, and it assumes -- always -- facts not in evidence (that the team or individual is static in all other respects of ability from one outing to another). If 538 devotes analytical time to this, it's chasing vapor or hoping for phenomenological validity. I fail to see how anyone benefits from being lectured about what lazy/lousy people they are. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not altogether fond of this sort of article for exactly the reasons Hithladaeus gives (all of these articles, such as choke (sports), dynasty (sports), etc. have vague and borderline unenforceable criteria for inclusion and end up being quite region-focussed). But as long as those other articles exist, I think the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument is a valid reason to keep collapse as well. The article needs to explain what on earth the "peak probability of victory" is, though – it looks like a neologism and probably shouldn't be there. Aspirex (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists can be valid or invalid. But since you describe the other stuff as having "vague and borderline unenforceable criteria for inclusion and end up being quite region-focussed," it seems it would be invalid in this instance. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article seems to go way beyond its sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would also recommend that the Choke article be deleted also due there being no strictly defined criteria of a collapse in sports or a choke in sports. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The definition of this term is purely subjective, and so this has no encyclopedic value. The list is basically just a subjective list of cheery-picked sports events too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an impressive and interesting chart, but that's not enough for a stand-alone article. BTW, is there anything on WP that even covers the notability of concepts? It's too hard to search for, especially because there seems to be a typo in WP:Other stuff exists (coincidentally, see above). "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability ..., and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Seems like it should say "general concept of notability." Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2015 (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.