Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Wizardman 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Ball

Animal Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and likewise, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Conditional Keep Deletion might be premature - would rather give the author a shot at getting it up to standards. (Apparently it was put up for speedy delete 1 minute after being created!) The game as described is legit, though obscure and will be a challenge to get past WP:N. Let the whole five days of AfD candidacy run and see if the article improves. Townlake (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's the nickname (game with no rules) that does it for me. If it is so freeform, I think it's unlikely it can get past WP:N now or ever. Erechtheus (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:MADEUP, WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I found enough about animal ball through search engines to satisfy me this doesn't fail the MADEUP test. I've added a note to the article's Talk page asking for improvements to the article - in its current state yes it fails on notability, but it shouldn't go down to MADEUP/NFT. Townlake (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Vets agree-- If you find one animal ball, you're likely to find the other one close by! Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ohhhh Mandsford. Anyway! I don't know that the minor 'undercurrent' of obscure presence this seems to have really counts. Non-notability comes in varying degrees, and something on the more notable end of that spectrum is still at heart non-notable. - Vianello (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed, notability isn't met; I'm withdrawing my request for patience, since the article hasn't been touched since its creation. Townlake (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N therefore non-notable. No reliable resources, or any resources at all.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (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.