Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty tricks (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty tricks

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

Procedural nomination for Eduen (talk · contribs), whose rationale was

This article seems to suggest the phrase "dirty tricks" can only refer to cheating in US politics. This is simply ridiculous but also this article has already been nominated for deletion before. It clearly has not been improved and I really don´t see how one could improve this thing which should have been deleted a long time ago. Also see this on the talk page. ansh 666 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe that this should have been deleted a long time ago. It obviously violates WP:NOTEVERYTHING, since it is not that of need in an encyclopedia. Dirty tricks also could refer to a more, much wider coverage of a certain subject, like "pranking". I also don't find it notable, despite the fact that indeed, dirt tricks are common in some places. But again, being famous doesn't mean it's a free pass to an article of itself. Dirty tricks usually, (just usually) don't have such reliable sources rather than news articles and these don't even focus on the nature of the so-called "trick". Should be deleted as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:N. | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open}| My Guestbook Here 09:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a common English usage that does not require defining. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unneeded as WP is not a WP:DICTIONARY. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2016 (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.