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. — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadminton[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Quadminton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Badminton variant said to be a "world renowned sport". PROD removed with the comment: "This game is rather famous in England - certainly in Surrey. While this was created by Caterham School students, it has been known to have been played for years in other schools or colleges...", but no sources are cited, and I can find nothing, e.g. Google, Google News, News Archives to suggest that it is in any way notable. There is a reference on this forum, but it's to a different game which sounds like Tetris. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds like fun and I hope it catches on. WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First time I've seen something that really was made up in school one day in some time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Add it to the article Badminton under a category called "Variants".--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)::But it's NOT a variant, it's just something some kids made up one day. There are no sources for verifiability. It is essentially a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX, and WP:NEO. Also Checkuser article creator, User:Willatkinslegend. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why checkuser him? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is clearly an interesting sport, I think we should keep it - Clarky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.220.140 (talk) — 86.172.220.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - <<- and the reason there are few other topics is because I have a dynamic IP.
• Keep - I think that it should be kept - or at least - merged into badminton. It is definately a popular sport - just look at the Facebook page! - WARA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.24.21 (talk) — 80.42.24.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete and oppose merge. It's completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think we should definitely keep Quadminton. Sounds like a really fun game, so where's the harm in allowing people to learn about it. (On behalf of IP 93.186.20.162)— 93.186.20.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - (just keeping all of the comments made up here :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.24.21 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I feel that Quadminton is a sport which warrants a Wiki article. It clearly appeals to a large number of people - and just by reading the article it has made me want to play it! What's wrong with an article giving information / promoting an obscure sport? One person's 'irrelevent' sport is someone else's hobby, and Quadminton should be treated with the respect it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and WP:NOHARM. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unverifiable. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – lack of verifiability as noted above. Likely madeup. MuZemike 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable, not notable, and smells very WP:MADEUPy. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Sport was discovered by the captain of Diversity which i believe to be an old old wooden ship from the falklands war. This Glorious sport was the salvaged amidst the battle and brought back to Caterham School in Surrey where it was adapted into Quadminton! This Sport then spread between surrounding schools creating the sport we know and love today. This piece of history deserves a space on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.1.161 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Bollocks! -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. See, especially, in that essay the sentence: "Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity." How true. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, so now the game was not created at the school, but was found somewhere? OK, that's great. Can you prove it with something reliable other than arguments that the game is really cool or interesting? Sauce, please! Is this fusion of badminton and four-square really all that notable? I mean, I'm sure it's cool, but this is not for Wikipedia if it can't meet those basic requirements. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you prove anything? If they came back with a book or website, how could you say for certain that that is not false? Yes, quadminton was a sport which was made up, but surely all sports were made up? How can you classify something like rugby as a sport when it was a variation on another sport (football) created by a bored student during a games lesson (William Webb Ellis at Rugby school), but quadminton notas one? All sports start somewhere, and quadminton is in danger of being ignored over some rules and technicalities! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.25.20 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board or a newspaper. If William Webb Ellis had just invented Rugby, it would not get a Wikipedia article until it had become notable, i.e. had taken off and been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Before you complain any more, please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - it's all explained there, I'm not going to write it all out again. JohnCD (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Because people are unwilling to even merge, I am now in support of keeping this article.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Forget it! I am no longer part of this discussion.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it is a sport which warrants a page. It has been mentioned in some books (including the e-novel 'Love in Zero-G' by Hathno Paige (quote: "The rest of the room looked fine too, with the exception of some quadminton rackets spilled from a storage locker" http://darkplanet.basespace.net/fiction/loveg.html ) - a story written and published in 2001.) It clearly appeals to a large number of people, and has been documented in various other areas. It would be worth keeping the article, almost certainly. Will Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willatkinslegend (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has quadminton been mentioned in any other sources at all? A google search for quadminton -wikipedia turns up only two references: this "e-novel" and one post to a forum about video games. Both of them appear to me to be independent references and neither appears to be a reference to this game. Can you tell us some of the other books or articles that have mentioned this game so that we can verify them? Tim Pierce (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well researched, Willatkinslegend, but the not-so-soft-porn "e-novel" is (a) from 2001, well before you invented your version, (b) about quite a different sort of game, with only a glancing reference to "Quadminton rackets". The forum one sounds like a sort of sideways Tetris. Neither is "significant coverage in a reliable source" of your version. Sorry, boys, but you really are wasting your time and ours; please read WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SAVE QUADMINTON SAVE THE WORLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.255 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...so you like it? That's it? We don't keep something only because you like it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you delete something only because you don't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.92.22 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, I'm sure it's a nice sport and would like to see it played someday, but it's still not suitable for inclusion unless someone here can show through reliable secondary sources. Please assume good faith. MuZemike 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then if we delete stuff for disliking this, why are we told to avoid this as an argument? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another SPA IP has changed "world-renowned" to "up-and-coming" - but see WP:UPANDCOMING - and added a link to bbc.co.uk/sport which, needless to say, says nothing about Quadminton. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question does it matter if Will Carling supported the 'Keep Quadminton on Wikipedia' movement via my Twitter page? I have had quite a few messages of support, through the Channel Bee 'banterpit', and the BBC 606 message boards - as well of course as the many hundreds who have now joined the Facebook page. This clear level of support must count for something - surely proving the 'relevance' of Quadminton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.92.22 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I'd think so. Surely if so many people think the sport is worthwhile, and worthy of a page, it must surely be relevent. But who am I, I am only a humble Wiki user and not a high-and-mighty admin, who ultimately gets to shout everyone else down... :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an admin. I maintain my delete !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does indeed count for something: it means that with that much enthusiasm, some day soon quadminton may in fact be sufficiently notable and verifiable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. But I don't think that it is ready for that yet. I look forward -- quite seriously! -- to the day when you can come back and cite enough independent reliable sources to create a quality article about the game. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • not-so-diplomatic response - No. See that link. If you're responding like this, you did not read that link the first time it was posted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Twitter page concerned is here and shows Will Atkins spamming all the celebs he can think of various celebs that "The wiki nerds want to shut our sport down". Nonsense, Will, nobody wants to shut your sport down, you are welcome to go and play it as much as you like, that would be a much better use of your time than trying to get it a Wikipedia article without taking the trouble to read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or understanding that Wikipedia only remains useful because of its policies of Verifiability and No Original Research. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnCD - I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - Keep it civil chaps.
    • Posting my Twitter page and then abusing me? I didn't think someone would stoop that low, to prevent something which will have no impact on their lives. To be honest, I'm regretting ever writing the article. It has been nothing more than a massive waste of my time, which would have been better spent living my life. My only advice to the 24 hour Wiki police is to see the light and step away from the computer. I am. If the article is deleted, it will be a shame. If it is kept, does it really matter? No. Oh well. JohnCD - congratulations. You have won. Regards, Will A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.86.47 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but if your Twitter page was meant to be private, you shouldn't have brought it into the argument - it took exactly three clicks to find it via Google, and as you quoted it in support, it's reasonable to let people see what's going on there. And I'm sorry if you feel abused, but I think many of us are getting tired of explaining Wikipedia basics over and over and over again to people who clearly aren't listening. Best of luck with your new game, put as much energy into developing it and recruiting players and organising tournaments as you have into pushing this article, and presently you'll get people writing about it independently and columns in the sports pages and eventually someone will write a Wikipedia article about it. But that comes well down the track, not at the beginning. Regards, and thanks for the message on the Twitter page. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You always have to have the last word don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.219.69 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about having the last word -- it's about hoping that you understand what happened here. Honestly, it is not fun trying to delete material off Wikipedia. This is not something that we do to get our jollies. But one of the reasons that Wikipedia is useful enough for Jeremy to use for history is that it is relatively free of fluff and nonsense, and one of the ways we keep it free of fluff is by deleting material that isn't verifiable and doesn't appear to be notable.

I am absolutely serious when I say that I look forward to seeing a "quadminton" article that can cite reliable sources to document that it's more than just something you and your mates made up a few days ago. I love seeing new knowledge come into the encyclopedia. But we need to maintain consistent standards of reliability and verifiability in order to keep it from becoming a joke. I hope very much that you understand what's going on here and that you will come back one day with enough material on quadminton to make a decent article. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The spamfest being orchestrated by the authour is not remotely helpful here. Google throws up 54 sources, but ommits all but 9 because they're so similar. Indeed, almost every single site it throws up is part of the aforementioned spamfest. It appears the same message has been posted to every forum and twitter page to be found. If it was the subject of a single WP:RS.... but it's not. HJMitchell You rang? 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as made up, with no sources. For what it's worth, I only came over here because of this great page - Alex Muller 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For being total bollocks --WebHamster 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX BigDunc^Talk 13:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. Camw (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources seem to exist, so completely unverifiable. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep News of this new sport reached me at Birmingham university, without any of its inventors contacting me to alert me of it. The fact that this sport has spread not only a large distance but also across the boundaries of the education levels clearly shows the effect it is having on the population. 81.136.165.31 (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — 81.136.165.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If news reached you by means of a reliable and verifiable news source, I would be very grateful to see a citation (and I imagine the other editors here would agree). Tim Pierce (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. it is not a popular sport, if only 5 people have heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.165 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The whole article is totally fictitious and unverifiable - not to mention poorly-formatted. (And also I'm a student in Surrey and I have never heard of it!)Tom (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is either completely made up or not notable at all. Additionally, I don't think 'Facebook groups' should be taken as verifying sources. There is also a whole load of meatpuppetry going on here... It's very funny. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Close - Completely made up. And, this is not a ballot, this is consensus. Requesting closure of discussion, as all keep !votes are made by SPAs or IPs.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:35, 20 May 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.