Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladder Pong

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. NW (Talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Pong

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable drinking game. Lacks GHits and GNEWS. WP:ONEDAY applies. Author removed PROD. ttonyb (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical made up college hijinks, no notability established, basically spam/hoax/advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:MADEUP Violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the investment of time and thought on behalf of the creators (as expressed on the talk page) but unless/until this is a well-known game it cannot be included in the encyclopedia. Buy some webspace, print out booklets, but Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word about your game. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remain I am one of the creators of the game... and i have wrote a few paragraphs under the "talk" portion of the Wiki entry. I have noticed that the main reason for the deletion is the game not being "notable." I would just like to state this in my defense: there are plenty of Wiki entries that bear nearly no notability what so ever. Now, the definition of what is notable comes into play. Among the most basic of definitions, notable means "worthy of notice, distinguished, unique." Although Ladder Pong combines aspect of other games, it is a unique entity of its own. Clearly, if it has spread to other places, then it is worthy of taking notice. Lastly, i have elaborated on the Wiki, the game is developed and distinguished. From WikiAnswers (i am not sure if there is an affiliation or not) but WikiAnswer defines an encyclopedia as "The word or term encyclopedia means a book or set of books that cover an extremely wide range of topics they a usually sorted in alphabetical order encyclopedias are seen as the most comprehensive reference book ever." Dictionary.com defines an encyclopedia as "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia... thus, part of an encyclopedia is to bring knowledge forth or enlighten people who are not familiar with a topic into familiarity, regardless of the subject perceived notability or renown. As for the notability of Ladder Pong, it has been played at a total of 4 Universities that i know of for sure, as well other cities and suburbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estones6 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there are plenty of Wiki entries that bear nearly no notability what so ever is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia... thus, part of an encyclopedia is to bring knowledge forth or enlighten people who are not familiar with a topic into familiarity, regardless of the subject perceived notability or renown. is WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Neither is a valid argument on Articles For Deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete but be open to e-mailing the author a copy. It doesn't meet WP:N and the references cited are a stretch at best. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT More elaborate and plausible than most, perhaps, but no more notable. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its creation is a clear conflict of interest and the citations have nothing to do with the topic. The "there are other non-notable entries" argument is insufficient, as already noted. The author's definition of "notable," "encyclopedia," etc. doesn't override the policies that are in place. Perhaps in the future this will meet the notability guidelines, but at this time I do not believe it does, as per WP:ONEDAY. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ISLANDERS27 09:04, 23 October 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.