Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crud (game)

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 no consensus, default to keep. I don't see a consensus to delete here, and a few new sources (none of which are all that reliable) have been suggested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crud (game)[edit]

I'm not sure that this game here as explained is notable - it seems to have a history of some sort, but I find it questionable at best. Somewhat reminiscent of something made up one day. What are other people's thoughts? Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs better sourcing, but it's pretty easily verifiable as a "fighter pilot tradition". Description here, a tournament result here. The search terms pretty much have to be "crud+billiards", as "crud+pool" brings up a lot of unrelated material as you may imagine and as you may not (such as nuclear slag!), and "crud+air.force" brings up venereal disease. There are a few Google Books results, but nothing in Google News Archive that I could find. Just enough for notability, and combined with the organizational sources, enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets notability standards and basic verifiability...though it certainly could use some more inline sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also mentioned on WP as being referred to in a novel: X-COM_:_UFO_Defense_-_A_Novel. Kay Dekker (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, two of the three external links provide much of this information. It simply isn't inline cited (already acknowledged as a deficiency), but that isn't a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't reliable sources. The first is a primary source and not independent, the second is a web forum, and the third is a paintballing club. I would like to see mentions of this game in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree, so let's talk about it. :-)
The first is simply an explanation of the rules. While it certainly is a primary source, that doesn't make the information contained inherently unreliable, merely that it must be treated with care. I will concede that it is not notable based on that source, but it is inherently reliable as a primary source.

The second seems to be mostly a reiteration of the information already stated, however, this source does show there is an interest outside the American CRUD Players Association and does show some notability, though not as much as I'd like.

The third is a reiteration of the rules again, but with some commentary. Given that the sourcing of these independent sites comes from two different countries and three regions of the world, I assert that notability has been established, even if it is at a most basic level.

I concede that independent coverage would be useful, but in simply stating the rules and the basics of the game, these sources are sufficient. I'll see what else I can find. Gimmee a few minutes to see what I can find. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary
from www.af.mil

from the University of Illinois

Tournament results [1].

Table manufacturer website info about the tables

Other
[2]

[3]

This was all from the first page of a google search. I'm not saying that the article doesn't need improvement, but its basic status as an article is firmly established IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: in short, they aren't the best sources, but they are reliable enough to be used in this context. Is there anything in this that doesn't fall in line with these cited references? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. In addition to verifiability, I'm not convinced of the notability of the subject: I'm unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um seriously, where is the problem here with regards to verifiability. I've already acknowledged that it lacks inline references, but that the given sources plus the ones above clearly verify the given information. As for notability, I showed above where it was mentioned in several publications from various regions of the world. What specifically are you looking for? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)

Respectfully, secondary sources are not required for verifiability (feel free to quote the policy and show me where I'm wrong), though they are preferred. See notations above for more rationale and additional sources. If anyone isn't going to look at them and respond, then please don't bother posting an ill-informed opinion on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be mostly drive-by remarks with very little of the desired "...more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (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.