- 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pound for pound (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)
Simple dictionary definition of a slang term used by sports commentators and others. The slang term usually simply means 'best, ignoring the weight class', or 'per weight' and is an adjective. Per WP:MOS: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages", there's no obvious article to redirect this too, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Teapeat (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and request speedy close as bad-faith nomination. The nominator previously redirected the article to Wiktionary. After undoing the redirect I made numerous improvements to the article which addressed all of the nominator's concerns. This is a nuanced concept, not a simple adjective. (I removed the information from the article that was strictly dictionary-related.) Wikipedia does not have firm rules. While articles about adjectives are generally discouraged, some are absolutely necessary (i.e. "heavyweight", "strawweight", ect.) For the adjective "strawweight", for example, we have 2 articles: "flyweight (MMA)", and "minimumweight" for boxing. Rather than have multiple "pound for pound" articles, I wanted to condense the information into one. As I describe below, the nominator has attempted to disguise that, by moving the page before nominating. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that before nominating, the nominator quietly moved the page back from pound for pound (sport) in an attempt to make it look like a simple dicttionary entry in spite of the numerous changes I had made. He lied, using an edit summary saying: "revert undiscussed move". I most certainly discussed it on the talk page prior to moving it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A discussion is when you having two-way communication between parties, preferably leading to an agreement, not simply you stating something, and then doing it as a fait accompli.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go troll someplace else. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A discussion is when you having two-way communication between parties, preferably leading to an agreement, not simply you stating something, and then doing it as a fait accompli.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I find that he's materially addressed none of my concerns, otherwise I wouldn't have called an AFD, it's still an adjective, and if there was any way it could be made encyclopedic I would have simply done it. The appropriate dictionary entry is here: wiktionary:pound-for-pound, and there's nothing wrong with that, at least.Teapeat (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can "find" that I've addressed none of your concerns, but the fact is that I've addressed each one you listed, which is why this is a bad-faith nomination. The closing admin will easily see that, looking at the article's talk page and history. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's absolutely necessary, I'll create the article "pound for pound (boxing)", but I'd much rather focus on improving the one that already exists, simply moving it back to "pound for pound (sport)". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and this isn't about you.Teapeat (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It apparently is. And make no mistakes; if this article is deleted, I will create and source pound for pound (boxing). (You know, the one you suggested?) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I do not know.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It apparently is. And make no mistakes; if this article is deleted, I will create and source pound for pound (boxing). (You know, the one you suggested?) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and this isn't about you.Teapeat (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As is - I think the term is used across a variety of martial arts not just boxing or mixed martial arts. The fact that there are maintained lists makes it more than just a dictionary term. It may be a subjective list but it exists all the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Classic DICDEF. Plenty of terms are used in plenty of places, Wikipedia shouldn't be defining dictionary terms in this way, we're here to write an encyclopedia.GliderMaven (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pound for pound is a common expression in English generally -- any use in sports is relatively recent. The ESPN rankings and so on don't come anywhere near justifying an article on the term's specific use in sprots. EEng (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The common English use is not just "pound for pound", but occurs as part of the transitive-verbal expression "match [something] pound for pound",[1] and has a rather different meaning then, totally unrelated to quality ranking. I don't know if the sports-related meaning and use of the term that is the topic of the article under discussion meets our notability requirements, but it is definitely different; when found in other use (e.g. here and here), it is obviously derived from the sports-related competitive ranking meaning. --Lambiam 09:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, diagramming sentences aside, the usage I had in mind is exemplified by children, pound for pound, need more energy than adults [2] i.e. while adults need more calories than children on an absolute basis, children need more after adjusting for the relative weight of children vs. adults. Other examples:
- This meaning is in keeping with the sports use, and my original arguments stand.
- EEng (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What arguments? There's no reason to have an article comparing the potassium-content of dates or the price of hay. There is good reason to have an article on the nuanced concept of this comparison as used in sport. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said argument (singular), sorry. And it was: "Pound for pound" is a common expression in English generally -- any use in sports is relatively recent. I wasn't suggesting an article on hay prices (anyway, there already is one), but arguing that the meaning of the term in boxing is no different than its meaning in general usage.
- Then your argument is incorrect. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're not saying how it's incorrect. See below.
- Then your argument is incorrect. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said argument (singular), sorry. And it was: "Pound for pound" is a common expression in English generally -- any use in sports is relatively recent. I wasn't suggesting an article on hay prices (anyway, there already is one), but arguing that the meaning of the term in boxing is no different than its meaning in general usage.
- What arguments? There's no reason to have an article comparing the potassium-content of dates or the price of hay. There is good reason to have an article on the nuanced concept of this comparison as used in sport. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article already contains more than dictionary content and has the potential for more about the concept. HBO boxing writer Bill Detloff's[5] essay on the concept is another useful source.[6]--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay confirms that, as used in boxing, the term means exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage, and exactly analogous to the examples I gave above. EEng (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So "meaning exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage" is a criterion to delete articles now? Interesting. "Money" means exactly what you'd think it would. Perhaps we should start an AfD for that. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the correct analogy would be articles on "Money (used to buy milk)", "Money (used to buy gasoline)" and so on -- there's nothing to say beyond what's in "Money". But back to the case at hand, if the sources in the article (plus I've looked around a bit on the net) are indicative of the available discussions of comparisons of fighters across weight classes, the article can never be more than selective repetition of sports writers' personal opinions. To the extent that's true there's nothing to justify a p.f.p. article (on Wikipedia) separate from a dictionary def of p.f.p (on Wiktionary). But if you could come up with some sources with more than superficial discussion and personal opinion things would be different. EEng (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, EEng. I don't mean to badger you. The nominator is a troll, and I shouldn't have let my frustration cause me to mock your good-faith !vote. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't see offhand (not that I really looked) the trolling behavior to which you refer, we've all said things we regret when feeling under attack. Let us speak no more of it. However, please consider what I say above. I think there could be a place for Pound for pound rankings (boxing), and Pound for pound rankings (wrestling) and so on -- assuming there really is serious, in-depth commentary, in a particular sport, from which the corresponding article could draw. But any article that tries to be, broadly, Pound-for-pound rankings (sports) would have to be so general as to be, as I keep harping, merely a straightforward application of the general idea, outside of sports, to sports. (Someone's example, below, of ants and elephants is better than mine above, by the way.) EEng (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that you're wrong. It's just that creating multiple articles (pfp boxing, pfp collegiate wrestling, pfp mma, ect.) will create even more stubs. So condensing them for the time being into "pound for pound (sport)" (which the nominator tried to cover up) seems to me to be the best way to go for now. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't see offhand (not that I really looked) the trolling behavior to which you refer, we've all said things we regret when feeling under attack. Let us speak no more of it. However, please consider what I say above. I think there could be a place for Pound for pound rankings (boxing), and Pound for pound rankings (wrestling) and so on -- assuming there really is serious, in-depth commentary, in a particular sport, from which the corresponding article could draw. But any article that tries to be, broadly, Pound-for-pound rankings (sports) would have to be so general as to be, as I keep harping, merely a straightforward application of the general idea, outside of sports, to sports. (Someone's example, below, of ants and elephants is better than mine above, by the way.) EEng (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, EEng. I don't mean to badger you. The nominator is a troll, and I shouldn't have let my frustration cause me to mock your good-faith !vote. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the correct analogy would be articles on "Money (used to buy milk)", "Money (used to buy gasoline)" and so on -- there's nothing to say beyond what's in "Money". But back to the case at hand, if the sources in the article (plus I've looked around a bit on the net) are indicative of the available discussions of comparisons of fighters across weight classes, the article can never be more than selective repetition of sports writers' personal opinions. To the extent that's true there's nothing to justify a p.f.p. article (on Wikipedia) separate from a dictionary def of p.f.p (on Wiktionary). But if you could come up with some sources with more than superficial discussion and personal opinion things would be different. EEng (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Money' is a noun though, and actually the topic is quite subtle, involves 'liquidity' and 'digital money' and all kinds of things, it's not just a dictionary definition like this.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia/encyclopedias just don't have this type of article on adjectives, it's actually an ISNOT. If we started to have articles like this on adjectives then we will have to create articles like beautiful, but the article is beauty. Similarly in this case, the central topic(s) are boxers/boxing and martial artists and any material that can be, should be merged there.Teapeat (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we won't, and no, it shouldn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So "meaning exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage" is a criterion to delete articles now? Interesting. "Money" means exactly what you'd think it would. Perhaps we should start an AfD for that. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay confirms that, as used in boxing, the term means exactly what you'd think it would from its meaning in general usage, and exactly analogous to the examples I gave above. EEng (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I believe this phrase is more of a dictionary definition. It's true it's now frequently used in boxing and MMA circles, but it's been used for much longer as a comparative term. For example, "pound for pound ants are stronger than elephants". It seems like it would be a better fit in Wiktionary than in Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one is suggesting removing the Wiktionary entry. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it was sourceable before and is now sourced. Lots of phrases are both defined in Wiktionary and discussed as a topic or concept in Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's a dictionary definition, and its use in boxing and MMA is consistent with that definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 10:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep content perfecty suitable for an encyclopedia, with high potential for expansion. Cavarrone (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I do not believe that pound for pound as a topic is appropriate for Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I don't see any encyclopedic that might be added beyond the definition. Jfgslo (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then apparently you haven't even read the article. But I suppose an editor who once PRODed 124 articles for deletion at one time wouldn't be bothered to actually look at the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the article and the sources cited there and there is simply no material for encyclopedic content when only one source is somehow related to the definition. Your ad hominem and poisoning the well arguments certainly do not show in any way how my rationale for deletion is incorrect according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfgslo (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading it again. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the article and the sources cited there and there is simply no material for encyclopedic content when only one source is somehow related to the definition. Your ad hominem and poisoning the well arguments certainly do not show in any way how my rationale for deletion is incorrect according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfgslo (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then apparently you haven't even read the article. But I suppose an editor who once PRODed 124 articles for deletion at one time wouldn't be bothered to actually look at the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Outside of the dictionary definition, the usage of the term in some other way would need WP:RS about the usage of the term, not simply referencing others using the term or WP:OR on how the term is being used by various sources. None of the sources provided, nor any found in a quick web/news search, are ABOUT the term. The HBO article almost comes close, but even if it did then it would be a single source of dubious reliability (written by an HBO staffer for their "inside HBO" desk). Ultimately, it is either DICDEF, or fails WP:GNG. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From what I can see, this is sufficiently more than a dictionary definition to warrant an entry on Wikipedia, and is sourced enough to mean that it should be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 3 July 2012 (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.