Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain's Pick in Australian Politics

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. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Pick in Australian Politics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a bit of a mess of an article for what's essentially a catchphrase. I'm not convinced it's unsalvageable, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in its current form and at its current title. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's been used maybe 5 times in australian politics and only once by Julia Gillard. The Australian national university even acknowledge it's originally a sporting term, mean basically the leader can choose unilaterally. and that is no different to using it in a political context. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just wp:recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A term that has only really been widely used for a week (and is a dictionary definition at that) does not need an article. -- Chuq (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:LibStar. There is no special context to this phrase in politics, and it seems pretty obviously to be a way to list out Tony Abbott gaffes. As we don't have server room for a complete list of those, and if we removed it this becomes a dicdef, I don't see any value in keeping this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, I don't think the term passes WP:GNG. It has been mentioned in the media, but I haven't seen "'Significant coverage' [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". I do however think that some of the article could be salvaged and merged into Tony Abbott's article, as it has been a personal controversy for him. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:23, 14 February 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.