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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Barry Bonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The sources provided in this article only verify stated facts; they do not establish any notability for the subject itself. This article was previously PRODed and two other editors endorsed the reasoning behind the PROD (same as given above). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shorten and merge to Barry Bonds. The "curse" seems to be worth mentioning. The section on the curse on the date October 14, Bonds last game in Pittsburgh, is a bit silly. Bad, and good, things happen every day of the year. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence that this s more than nonnotable jargon. But if it is merged, it should be with the Pittsburgh Pirates article, since it refers to the way the team has been operated, not with Bonds himself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some curse of Barry Bonds being notable in and of itself has not been presented. Information about the running of the Pirates in recent years is notable, but should be with the Pirates, not in some vague tangent.98.28.229.63 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Longtime Pittsburgh fan, never heard of this alleged curse before. No sourcing of the "curse" itself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with NWgnome-- worth a mention in Barry Bonds, or, as HBW says, to the Pittsburgh Pirates, although I have a feeling it won't last long in the latter article. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep" or "merge" I am the article's primary author-I shortened the article, removed the Oct 14 section, added specific references of sports articles and a blog that reference the curse. I feel the curse is notable specifically in reference to the Pirates unprecedented failures and also in relation to a tradition of similar baseball curses such as the Red Sox curse of the bambino and the cubs Curse of the billy goat. Also the fact that Bonds has been asked in an interview about the curse also give credence to the notion that this is a notable subject. Curseofbonds (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blogs are not reliable sources. Bonds was asked about the curse but acknowledged that such a thing doesn't exist; in that source, the curse is mentioned as being possible but hasn't received any wide coverage. The third article shown is from a local sports source and probably wouldn't count as "wide coverage" either since it's local to the team. The curse articles you reference, in addition to the Curse of Billy Penn and the Curse of Fred Merkle, have significant coverage in reliable sources, as defined in WP:V. The rest of the sources only verify factual statements, as stated above. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

• • I included the blog as a reference that fans are acknowledging the curse. Reference #4 [1] in the article also is a national source covering the curse. Of course Bonds denied the curse I think it is notable because it was from an article from the AP and Bonds was asked about the curse. Just because he denied does make it less notable.Curseofbonds (talk)

Comment even though I agree with the AfD, I think the article is well written. You have done a good job explaining the curse (if there even is one). ^TheWeak_Willed 11:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to me that this is one of the many "curses" that bloggers that are bored make up to explain a few losing seasons. A curse is when a team doesn't win the World Series for 100 years, or 86 years and the ball gets by Buckner. Unless this is going to be a long term thing, it isnt notable. Maybe in years to come there will be wider coverage. ^TheWeak_Willed 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "a few losing seasons"?? The Pirates losing is unprecedented in the history of professional sports, 16 soon to be 17 season without have a winning record.Curseofbonds (talk)
    • Except that 16 consecutive was already done before. So don't say unprecedented. 17 consecutive is only one more than 16, and this team is obviously not committed to winning right now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Phillies only had one winning season from 1918-1948, so this sort of losing is precidented. Teams go through struggles, but to call a 16 year struggle a curse may be jumping the gun. ^TheWeak_Willed 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it only constitutes a legitimate curse when you come close to winning but don't quite make it (eg the media prattled on about the curse of the billy goat more after Steve Bartman intervened). If there is any "Bonds curse", it is possibly that he didn't win a World Series despite being on some good teams (the Pittsburgh team just before he left, the Giants team that won 100 games but didn't make the playoffs, or losing the 2002 World Series in 7 games). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (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.