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. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceball[edit]

Tagged A7 but not strictly speediable. Unquesitonably something made up in school one day. May be worth completely rewriting with the subject of the arcade game of the same name, if that is notable. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SNOW. Sorry, guys, definitely NFT material. Part Deux 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe when it's an olympic sport, but for now.....--Tainter 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madlobster 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continueing from the talk section of the page, how are individuals "not a reliable source of information"? That is like saying what can George Lucas possibly know about Star Wars. To be fair, if I created the sport three years ago, wouldn't I be considered the expert on it? I also want to convey the point that this sport runs like a well-oiled machine, gains members every year, and is well organized. I just dont see the logic in deleting a page that broadens a person's horizons from an encyclopedia. regardless i would like the opertunity to keep this page and I will makes corrections to fit your sites needs, again, thanks for your time. Amadaus 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No, indidividuals are not themselves a reliable source. Secondary articles about what the individual says are. See WP:RS. Not to mention if you created the game, there's a conflict of interest to consider. And, as the nominator pointed out, something made up in school one day is not encyclopedic nor notable. -- Kesh 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- dodgeball was made up in school one day, some food for thought. I still dont see how I am not a credible source due to the fact that even if I created the sport, why would I write false information about it? I can also have my other co-creaters verify that the information is factual if that is what you need. Regardless do as you are going to do i guess as i will try to make this legitimate enough to meet your needs. and if indivivduals aren't reliable sources, newspapers wouldn't be able to function, you need interviews and information from the creator in a news story to make it factual. Amadaus 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please re-read my comment and WP:RS. We need secondary sources about the subject, not primary ones. We don't want George Lucas to log in and edit the article about C-3P0, we want published articles from reliable sources quoting George about the subject. Those are verifiable in a way that first-hand comments are not. Wikipedia cites other sources to verify that the statements exist. Dodgeball has become notable over decades and sources can be cited about it. This is a random game with no notability whatsoever. Hence, it currently has no place on Wikipedia. If, in the future, your game becomes well-known, then it would qualify for an article. -- Kesh 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i saw a typo in your last post and took the liberty of correcting it. Amadaus 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have thought it was funny to edit my comments, but that's a bad idea. Especially since anyone can see exactly what you did. -- Kesh 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to provide adequate references per standard guidelines. If references can be found by the close of this debate I'll change my opinion ( but I'll bet they can't ). WMMartin 14:48, 1 February 2007 (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.