Winning streak: If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport.  Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified deletion discussion lists The following discussion has been closed.  Please do not modify it.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport ... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article.  You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written.  jp × g 🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and Conyo14 too.  I'm not asking for a cleanup as winning streaks will always happen.  I agree with Oaktree b , its best put it out of its misery rather than do something with it as most of those leagues has their own list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Way too long for a list, I'd recommend breaking it out by sport/country/something, and using better inline citations.  We don't need to list every streak that has ever happened, all in one extensive list of one-liners.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] .  The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced.  — if this is the case, you should go do this yourself if you want to save it so bad.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Me placing sources there shouldn't matter.  The notability already exists.  After this AfD, I'll change the article to match more of the terminology than make it just a list.  It's not worth my time during an AfD though.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - needs a clean up, but seems notable as a well-known term/concept.  Giant Snowman 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not saying that it is not notable as a well-known term/concept but c'mon, that list is pretty excessive, don't you think?  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes - but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies.  You've acknowledged the concept is notable, so therefore it should not be deleted.  Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Flibirigit ( talk ) 12:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - totally meaningless to have a vast list of winning streaks from sports which are not directly comparable (eg a hurling streak of 21 games which took over four years to complete vs a baseball streak of 26 games which took less than a month).  Records about streaks in specific sports should be on appropriate records articles for those sports, and if you strip those out from this article you are just left with a DICTDEF -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to List of winning streaks in sports , or possibly merge with List of winning streaks with {{ main article }} in the respective sections. The concept of a winning streak in sports is well-covered, even in the broadest sense as covering all sports, see "The 33 best streaks in sports history" . ESPN.com . 2013-03-28 . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . , "Six of the Best: Winning Streaks" . Sports Gazette . 2017-09-19 . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . , Majev, Brendan. "Untouchable: The Greatest Streaks in Sports" . Bleacher Report . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . . It clearly meets WP:NLIST , and whether or not a stricter set of criteria for inclusion should be applied is a separate issue from whether or not the article should be kept. Thank you, -- Habst ( talk ) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep – Terminology inherent to various sports with encyclopedic content to be expanded. Svartner ( talk ) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have nothing against the nomination, because it's reviewing the content on the article, however Winning streak as terminology can be a valid article. It's just the current article is dire. It needs a complete overhaul and stripping right back to the essence of the terminology. Govvy ( talk ) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per above, though the article could do with some cleanup. Govvy raises good points. The Kip 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but it needs cleanup per above.   I believe List of winning streaks can be merged into this article, but AFD is not the place for such a discussion. Merge with List of winning streaks . A paragraph on there explaining winning streaks is sufficient, and will help understanding of the topic. But this indiscriminate list is not at all encyclopedic. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree with ChrisTheDude above that a list like this should be by sport. Not only that, there should be context within each sport. This is unreadable as it stands and of no use to readers. Alleged notability is not a valid reason to keep such a mess. Batagur baska ( talk ) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hot hand : this comes across as an unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, created by SYNTH of unrelated events loosely tied by the use of a term for which we already have a Wiktionary entry. While the individual items in the list are sourced, I see no source that ties them all together into a single cohesive topic. The proposed target addresses the phenomenon itself, without including a list of no encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all of the good reasons listed by editors above. When so many editors issue a Keep or Strong Keep comment there should be no question about closing this down and keeping the page. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When many of the Keep !votes are of the WP:ILIKEIT type, there absolutely is a question about deleting the article. There is no question about allowing this debate to run its full course. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been pointed out that sources exist for each of the entries. There is nothing wrong with "I like it" if sources exist for notability, which is, I think, all the many Keep editors are saying. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You've just defined WP:SYNTH - combining multiple sourced items into an agglomeration that isn't sourced. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is what I was thinking of too. What are those keep voters thinking when they voted? don't they care that this list is getting out of control bloated? This is why I said its best to put it out of its misery. If this gets to a no concensus or keep verdict, this marks a new low point of Wikipedia's credibility. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per all keep voting editors above. Clearly notable topic. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ILIKEIT . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "I share the same views on rationale as others and don't wish to repeat it" isn't ILIKEIT, maybe come up with a rebuttal to some of the arguments first. Kingsif ( talk ) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – at its core this is a WP:DICDEF followed by an indiscriminate collection of information which contravenes WP:NOTSTATS . Aspirex ( talk ) 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic of a winning streak is absolutely a notable topic - WP:NOTCLEANUP . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject  meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [52] ], [ [53] ], as well as outside of sports [ [54] ]. Article needs some work and I share some concerns with the nom about the current state of the article, but as others have already noted, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . I agree that List of winning streaks should likely be merged but that is for a different discussion. User:Let'srun 23:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trim article to concept only, removing sports lists : A few points jump out at me: The concept of a "winning streak" is notable, as illustrated by sources presented by different editors in this discussion.  I suspect that there are sufficient sources out there to avoid WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  The trickier questions are:  a) whether Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, and  b) if so, whether that list should be at this article title.  I think some editors previously contributing to this discussion have cast ! votes answering one but not both of these questions, which might render determining consensus difficult if we're talking across each other.  I'm ambivalent on question 2a, though I think it's generous to suggest that a list of longest-winning streaks will be maintained faithfully.  But on question 2b, I definitely do not think that the list of winning streaks should be at this article title.  My instinct is that Winning streak should be reserved to winning streaks as a concept, with some examples if necessary, while the current article's contents should be redistributed to List of winning streaks and similar articles.  For this position, there is no real AfD ! vote that suffices, because it's essentially a redistribution of contents away from the article.  Whether those contents should be hosted on another page of the encyclopaedia is another question, and one we don't have to discuss at this AfD.  Interested editors can retrieve those contents from the page history after a trim, and include elsewhere as appropriate.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be an unhelpful exercise, but I've tried to understand previous contributors' views with this framework.  This is my understanding of their positions from what they have explicitly said (feel free to amend if you disagree).  1.  Is there notability beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY ?  Yes :

Discussion outcome: no consensus