Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footbasket

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 deletebasket. --Coredesat 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Footbasket

Footbasket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Weregerbil 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I resent that. Did you happen to watch Fox yesterday (Sunday, for Australian, Queensland viewers)? You would have seen this game on there, the Cowboys v Hammerheads. I don't see why it's being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs)
• Delete for a lack of verifiability (Google gives pages in Spanish and Japanese for some reason). Certainly there's no indication that the league cited in the article exists, and what little I can muddle out from the Spanish sources suggests that they're using the term in some other way. Calling it something made up in school one day is perhaps a bit harsh, but it doesn't seem to have much currency in the wider world. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a nonsense non-notable article, unless reliable sources can be provided within five days. (aeropagitica) 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that was the aim, if you read the discussion you will see I asked if other people had seen it. That way, I would be able to get help finding the sources. Because as written in the article, it is not yet extremely popular. However, if other people had seen it, they too would find sources. Also, are you aware of Google's indexing process? It takes quite awhile to actually have a site enter the database, as a result, with Footbasket only being given regular air-time recently, the site would probably not be indexed yet. As scary as it may be, google does not know all the secrets, including the meaning of life. And also, what about the notion of civilty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. As oppossed to simply whacking a 'delete me' sign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2006
    • As the creator of the article you don't need any help finding the sources. You know where you got your information from. So cite it. Uncle G 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As a side not, Google does actually have the meaning of life.. Delete. --humblefool® 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First of all it is not uncivil to suggest that an article be deleted. But any such discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Delete per nomination. However, if other people had seen it, they too would find sources.. Ah, can I have an article about my new game Headball hoping that more people will add sources without me having to prove its notability or even existence? MartinDK 10:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, relatively obscure and 'new' sport. From the article;
  • "Fasket League" gets 0 ghits.
  • 'Cape Regina Ramblers' gets 0 ghits.
  • I do not see the "creator's" names 'Dave and Mike Walker' and "John Sull" clearly linked to the game (via ghits),
  • the original team 'the razors' is not linked to the game.
• So, I think we have a clear case of NN here.SkierRMH 10:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified and probably made up in school one day. The article's talk page stinks of sock puppetry. I think Hops Ball may also be part of a wider hoax involving the possible sock puppets Quillandpaper73 Clonestamper and Dingleberryfinn. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'Ah, can I have an article about my new game Headball hoping that more people will add sources without me having to prove its notability or even existence?' Oh, I wasn't aware that other people had played this game, other people around the world, other people from a variety of backgrounds. But sure, if this game has been aired on international television, then post it. But wait, that's right, it hasn't been aired on international television, so I think your argument is flawed there. But as you are speaking with ad captandum, I think I shall ignore your arguments altogether.

  Just a question, when did Google become the be all and end all? I realise that yes, it's a good search engine, but I wasn't aware it was everything. But to follow the logic of my friend over here, as a google search for my thesis on certain topics reveals no hits, does that mean the topic does not exist?

  Finally mate, it's a bit hard to make a 'made in school' notion when you don't attend school, wouldn't you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillandpaper73 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 November 2006

  Uhh, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Google being the end-all be-all. Google is a search engine, plain and simple. If something as well known as, say, a publicly broadcast sport is documented somewhere on the Internet, chances are, Google will find it. Are you suggesting that there are certain subjects that Google can't find? Wavy G 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Wikipedia is not for thing made up in school one day" is the title of a widely cited Wikipedia notability guideline. It does not literally refer only to things that were made up in an actual school over the course of a single day. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I do believe there is a key difference between 'it is classed under things made up in school one day' and 'probably made up in school one day'. Sure, to the experienced person, it may read the same. But for someone new who only knows the rules, it reads as claiming I am a juvenile seeking to cause havoc. And as the wiki ettiquite guidelines go, you should be clear to newcomers, I'm sorry I expected such behaviour here.
• Delete hoax. Check out the talk page for a good laugh. All those people happened to "catch the game on Fox yesterday," yet, no one else can manage to scrounge ANY information about this on the Internet??? Wavy G 18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to unverifiability and failure to meet notability criterion "be described by multiple independent reliable sources" per WP:N JGardner 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are no hits in Ebbsco's Australia/New Zealand reference centre for footbasket so distinct verifiability problems. The television guide for Sunday in Australia shows no matches of footbasket being broadcast on Fox Sports. Should be placed in the wastepaper basket. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yumm... a hoax complete with a three-headed sockpuppet and the most ridiculous talk page I've seen. --The Way 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction, 4-headed sockpuppet! You forgot User:Sadasdas And His Redirect-Vandalisms. 68.39.174.238 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Eject as a technical foul per WP:VANDAL, WP:CSD G3, WP:SNOW. It's just vandalism. Tubezone 01:35, 18 November 2006 (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.