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. Can be recreated as a redirect if a suitable target is found. Sandstein 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game in hand (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)

Really tricky one. It exists, and it has mentions, mainly for football (soccer) but also in other sports. However it has no notability I can see, and is more a dictionary definition - and in this case, an overly-long definition with no sources. I think it coul possibly be useful on Wiktionary. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of association football terms. GiantSnowman 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term is used in other sports so I'm not sure if a redirect would be appropriate. Spiderone 12:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useful in Wiktionary but not for Wikipedia Spiderone 12:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It also has another meaning. To say "he's got the game in hand" means that he's expected to win. I'd never heard the other use before. Do we do soft redirects to Wiktionary? Hobit (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect if a suitable target can be found. This is a term, but an article should be based on more than mere existence. And a lot of this stuff is unsourced, wandering off topic. Jontesta (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2020 (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.