Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circball

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. Very simple reason: not yet notable, as even the supporters of the article recognize . It would have been wiser to delay making the article until it does become notable, as several good editors have already advised below. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Circball

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

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

Non-notable, "new" sport, with no coverage found at reliable, independent sources. Contested PROD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Circball (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Web search finds primary, sales, and social media hits. Could not find anything better than this link from the WP entry itself. If better coverage can be found, happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. See additional links to GMA Network's wider coverage of Circball games. Also uploaded Letter of Intent from UNTV-which is in current negotiations to feature Circball in their Sports TV magazine program called Sports37. Additional feature of Circball by a Children TV, none of which were self-published, are now available. Also, a recent USPTO's patent grant indicates that this "new" sports invention deserved patent protection due to its uniqueness and novelty, a feature of notability. --Circball (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the additions to the article, but I find them unconvincing. "On April 2011, the first Circball competition was held...with ten teams" suggests a nascent activity that might garner notability in the future, but has not yet done so. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I would have speedied this as nn if it wasn't listed here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search produces www.circball.com, facebook, Twitter, blogspot, Yahoo Groups, etc etc, but I have been able to find little evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. Oh yes, and a Wikipedia article created by a single purpose account whose user name matches the subject of the article. In fact what I have found is exactly the kind of thing that I would expect to find if this were a fairly new and unestablished sport with a group of enthusiasts determined to publicise it on every web site they can edit themselves. That is absolutely fine, except that it's not what Wikipedia is for. Best of luck with getting publicity for the game, and if and when you have succeeded in making it prominent then please come back to write about it on Wikipedia, but it's not ready for that yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• The username match with the subject article was a minor mistake due to the editor being new in WP. That issue was already corrected. As to the publicity charge of the article, please see further response below.Circball (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete :p duh. –η-θ 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• For what reason?

• Keep or Merge or Redirect Comment. The purpose of the Circball article was not to garner notability nor publicity in WP. The purpose was to contribute public knowledge and information of which the entire community of WP might benefit from its value. The sport of Circball has already been publicized on other venues/sites outside of WP. These publicities have received considerable benefit to Circball more than it would have in WP. Therefore, the charge of publicity in WP may be beyond the scope of this discussion.
  However, as a reminder, this article was nominated for deletion for "non-notable" not for promotional issues. Let's focus on the main issue. Your WP guidelines of Notability states that, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." only that it must be "worth of notice" That's what happened to Circball. Circball, not being famous yet or popular yet, was however significantly noticed by several independent media companies in the Philippines (for its news value and value to children and sports, see additional updated links in the article), and is therefore crucial enough to be included in these vast array of knowledge of WP. In short, Circball is encyclopedic because it passed the minimum requirements of notability--that is it was noticed by reliable third-party sources period. Notability should be regardless of whether it is personally like or not like by individual users/enthusiasts/editors, etc. Could there be popularity contest of articles in WP in determining notability? I hope not.
  Also, perhaps the sources/reference given may be difficult to understand due to it being in a different language other than English. You think? I would therefore invite editors who speak the language of the Philippines to make a comment here after reviewing and reading these foreign-language sources/reference. When listened to in detail and in its entirety, these sources made a "significant coverage" of Circball:

1. "24 Horas" news coverage of Circball
2. "News To Go" by GMANews TV
3. "Tropang Potchi" - a children TV show features Circball
4. Letter of Intent (2 pages) from UNTV's Sports37
5. Major News Coverage of Circball at GMANews "Saksi"
6. Abante-Tonite. Newspaper article talking about current innovations in Philippine sports that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.

Inability to understand the language in these independent sources especially the Philippine news coverage references is not reason enough to conclude non-notability. Anyone needing translation of these sources into English can be accommodated. Editing of this article is still on going to conform to WP guidelines, let us know if there are suggestions or feedback. But mere deletion of this article due to purported publicity stunt when it's not would be a setback to WP. Thank you. Circball (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Circball (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Delete - An encyclopedia is not intended to cover things made up that sound cool. This is advertising for a non-notable "sport", nothing more. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• This "made up" thing that sounds cool has been featured from a "reliable source." See the patent that was granted by the United States Patent Office, which seems reliable according to the WP's Made Up rule. USPTO Patent #7,766,771 issued 08/03/2010. Again, advertising is not the main issue in this discussion but it's Notability. Several sources have been provided above that made significant coverage of the topic and falls within the notability guidelines of WP. Please check out these sources first then make a judgment. If you can't understand the source because it's not in English, let us know. Thanks.Circball (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• GMAnews is a possible qualifier for the reliable sourcing threshold, but the others are just youtube links and facebook fan pages, thus they do not qualify. As for patent filing anyone can file for a patent, that is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. In this case GMAnews IS a reliable source. GMA has made their news reporting available online via their own website and via a popular video website called Youtube. Just because a video is linked to Youtube must not be easily discounted. In your WP's reliable sourcing, it states "Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. [ie, GMANews] Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist [It does in Youtube]. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (emphasis added are mine) In this case, GMA indeed archived their videos in Youtube as well as in their own website. So just because a reliable video archive is sourced through a Youtube link doesn't necessarily mean it's not reliable. Here's a link to GMA News and Public Affairs Youtube channel. A search for "Circball" will show the archive. This particular video is not accessible from their own website. However, it's available through their official Youtube channel. The facebook links are only to show who "Tropang Potchi" is. It's a Children Show run by GMA Network which GMANews is a part of. Circball (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're not paying attention. The Wikipedia guidelines call for notability to be satisfied by coverage in multiple sources. Even if GMA is accepted, that is only one; you can't add youtube links to that total, even if they are "official youtube channels". So, so far, you may have one source. "One" ain't "multiple". Tarc (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I understand. One ain't multiple. But one ain't non-notable either. More is better. But one is enough, in this case. Multiple is not required because this discussion is not about Neutrality--per your Rule it says "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Neutral POV is not the subject of this discussions, it's non-notability. In either case, the Letter of Intent from UNTV's Sports37 (see link #4 above) can also be counted as another source, if more is insisted. And if that's the case then, this article should be allowed. Circball (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The generally accepted norm for the WP:GNG threshold is "multiple". You may word-parse the page there to your heart's content, but the chances of ever getting an article to stand that relies on a single source is slim to none. As for the "letter of intent", it amounts to an advertisement for what a cable channel is going to broadcast. Not sufficient. Tarc (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Again I'm just going by what I understood under your WP:GNG rule. Notability only requires five things:

1. "Significant coverage"
2. "Reliable"
3. "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. True. but not required in this case.
4. "Independent of the subject"
5. "Presumed" (Presumption)
   

Again "Multiple" is not required in this particular case because this discussion is not about Content. This article fulfills the minimum requirements above for notability... again.. the word is notability, not content. Once the article is allowed, then any editor can tag other issues if they so choose. But for this discussion purposes and for this issue only, we are focused on notability only and nothing else because that's what this article was tagged for (please review above header notations).Circball (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Allow me to be crystal-clear, then; if all you can come up with is a single reliable source, then this AfD will result in deletion. Tarc (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just to quote the guidelines: "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." WP:GNG So there hope. On the other hand, Letter of Intent, Page 2 requests Circball to be a feature in its Sports programming. (UNTV is then another independent source in addition to GMANews). UNTV, independent of GMA, noted Circball as a sport which resulted in this request. There are several sources and deletion is the last resort, per WP guidelines. So to the contrary, this article will NOT contain just a single reliable source. Circball (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment one thing we have to consider is that, because it's a Filipino game, our ability to gather reliable sources from the region is already going to be extremely stunted. The GMA television coverage does imply that there is probably coverage in Filipino news sources out there. Silverseren^C 20:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. There are other coverages out there in the Philippines. One of them was a coverage of Circball by a children show called Tropang Potchi owned by GMA and Q-TV. An email request was sent to GMA Network Inc to release archival videos of the Circball coverage of Tropang Potchi as it is not currenly available online. (Will update this page when its available). For now, however a Youtube behind-the-scenes video shots are available Here and Here. In addition, coverage of Circball through other various News programs for wider reporting is available for viewing (See item #1 & item #2 of the source list above). Also to clarify, although the original inventor of Circball is of Philippine descent, Circball is not just strictly a "Filipino game". Circball, to date however, has been widely accepted in that country as shown by these news coverages due to wide acceptance of the sport of basketball by Filipinos than in any other country. GalingPinas (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..."WP:GNG. Let's discuss in detail these sources and how they meet these 5 criterias for notability purposes.

Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.

2. "Reliable" - Saksi new coverage is reliable because it came from a major new media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.

3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.

4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.

2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.

3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.

4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.

5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.

2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.

3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.

4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is the classic definition of "trying to hard" (a shame we can't link to ED), or the more prosaic "squeezing blood from a stone". We have one news outlet, one children's show from the same source as the news outlet, and a web show. This is just painfully obvious drumming up of negligible news sources for a made-up-in-my-back-yard game. This isn't a sport, I'd be hard-pressed to call it a game, it is like a new and fun thing to do at your local rec league or YMCA. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Not a sport"? You ought to read WP's definition of Sport then. From the tone of your response, you may or may not like this "made-up-in-my-back-yard game" (which btw was GRANTED a utility patent by the USPTO due to its new, useful, and non-obvious process). You probably haven't played the game yourself, either. That's why the ad-hominems tone of your responses. But that's not the issue here. Whether this is a sport or not, the issue here is about notability. The analysis above confirms notability of this article per WP rules. I would rather see an educated response to the analysis above rather than see responses that are beyond the scope of these discussions.GalingPinas (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Another new independent source. The show "Tropang Potchi" that featured Circball was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. According to the newspaper article, the Tropang Potchi show highlighted some current innovations in Philippine sports that include in-line hockey, flag football and circball. This indicates that even though there is coverage of Circball from the same news outlet (GMA), it was nonetheless confirmed by an independent third-party source, Abante. GalingPinas (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• Trivial mention. The relevant passage from this TV listings digest (in translation):

Unique experience in sports ipapakilala the Tropang Potchi now 9:15 AM on GMA 7. Along with host Julian Throne and her new friend, JM Reyes, the program airs on innovations in hockey games, football and basketball. Enjoy children and adults the story about in-line hockey, flag football and circball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Because Google's generic translation is so unreliable, here's a better translation:

Different experiences in sports will be introduced by "Tropang Potch" today [September 10, 2011] 9:15AM on GMA 7. Together with host Julian Trono and his new friend JM Reyes, the program will show innovations in the sports of hockey, football and basketball. Young and old alike will enjoy the story about in-line hockey, flag football and circball. (emphasis on date, added)

Now, before discounting this as trivia, this independent newsline only confirms "Tropang Potchi"'s feature of Circball, in absence of a direct link to the children show on GMA website. We're not saying it's a substantial coverage of Circball. However, being "noted" is the point of these discussions, thus the inclusion of this source. Remember "these notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article" WP:Notability. Here's why this source was included in this discussion: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. [Example, Tropang Pochi's coverage of Circball]. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." It is therefore proposed that this article about Circball be KEPT instead of deleted, despite the supposed votes of Deletes by users above, some of which lack adequate and reasonable arguments for proposed deletion -- merely they're statements without valid support. If the article can't be kept, please re-direct to a more appropriate article such as Variations of basketball, etc. GalingPinas (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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.