Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bossaball (2nd nomination)

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 Keep JodyB _talk 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bossaball

Bossaball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not Notable sport, External Links is a primary source & Copyright violations on the images. ExtraDry 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete little independent sources Will ^(talk) 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and salt - There is no evidence of notability here. This obvoiusly a is a new and very niche sport. Given that the logs for this article show that it has been removed a number of times and recreated afterwards in each instance (including almost immediately the last two times) I must conclude that salting is needed to keep this topic off of Wikipedia. Should this sport show signs of catching on (meaning articles in notable publications and/or press coverage of bossaball tournaments, etc.) then a deletion review can be done to decide if unsalting is appropriate. --EMS | Talk 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to the nominator's claim, there are no image copyright vios. Rracecarr 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Three of the images are taken from the website thus copyright vios. ExtraDry 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Although Commons Image:Bossaball-wiki-3.jpg also appears on [1], it is not necessarily a copyright violation. The version uploaded to commons is of a much higher resolution and it is not cut off by cheesy flash formatting. Other photos also appear on [2], with the disclaimer stating "Feel free to use these images for any purpose." There are several possibilities: the photographer contributed personally to bossaball.com and also released his work on Commons, the website used a free picture they found on Commons without proper attribution, or the Commons user lied about taking these pictures. I highly doubt that the copyright status, in this case, is a huge concern, but you could always check by e-mailing User:Pedroromero2 or the webmaster of bossaball.com. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Copright is always a concern. ExtraDry 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then I hope you make an attempt to contact the uploader and webmaster. Nevertheless, the use of questionable images by themselves is not a valid argument for deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No image copyright violation. Notability and Sources are being discussed on Talk:Bossaball. Existing sources need to be used in the article. Article is a stub = it needs work and time. Ronald.peavey 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• This looks like fun! However, weak keep -- the coverage is there, but it's still trivial-ish. I'm sorta seeing notability momentum there so I'd give the article a chance. -- Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed with above. I'd like to get this on a beach or something nearby. 128.61.53.136 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

— 128.61.53.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

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.