Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goof 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. Sr13 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goof Ball

DEAR FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS: I, Gaspan, confess that Goof Ball was not as notable as some other cue sports. I also am so sorry, I have created many sock-puppets on Wikipedia such as Gaspan, easypeasy12, monopoly123, and WIKIERthanYOU. I am new to Wikipedia and I did not realize how serious that Wikipedia was about this incident. I promise that I will not do such a thing again, yet I ask that you do realize that Goof Ball is really a cue sport (not a hoax)! I ask for someone to delete this page (because I... don't know how properly...) I have learned an important lesson (on Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly123 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 July 2007

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

Unsourced article on a pool game. Note sure this is verifiable and is a possible hoax. Certainly this does not appear to meet our notability standards. The article states that the game was "popularized in 2006." Only two hits searching Google for "goof ball tournament" [1] both resolving to a yahoo geocities page that is defunct [2]. Various other searches I attempted with Pennsylvania, and other terms with the name were fruitless. No results at Google news or books. I also searched the archives at Billiardsdigest.com and bupkis [3]. For what it's worth, while we all should remain leery of "I’ve never heard of it" type arguments, I am one of the majority contributors to Wikipedia’s billiard content, play the occasional professional tournament in real life, and: I’ve never heard of it.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ten Pound Hammer and Fughettaboutit:
I understand your reason for deletion of a page on the sport of Goof Ball. Yet I am still constructing the Goof Ball page and I ask for some time to improve the article to reach the standards of Wikipedia. There currently is sources from the GBC such as the rulebook and the Goof Ball constitution that have not yet been published on the internet. Also Goof Ball is not yet a well known billiard game, so I wanted to teach others about this new growing sport. I have visited your user page and I hope you will understand this circumstance different from the many others you look at. Thank you for your understanding.--Gaspan 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Gaspan
  • Comment: This so called GBC "organization" is simply the same handful of friends and family as play the game; this is clear from the web site (see below), so it is not an independent source, and thus cannot be used for purposes of establishing notabilty. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • STrong Delete. The author Gaspan said it best, it is not well known yet, thus not noteable, thus not article material. Pharmboy 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've played in the Goof Ball tournament last year, and I know about this new sport!--Easypeasy12 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)easypeasy12

span style="color:purple">

  • Delete per article creator's comment "Also Goof Ball is not yet a well known billiard game, so I wanted to teach others about this new growing sport." -- assertion of lack of notability. Spazure 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", fails WP:NOTE spazure (contribs) 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to sound like a total defender of this article, but I don't see that it's been demonstrated found the original stuff; see below that there are no such sources, only that the article (which the principal author says (s)he's still right in the middle of working on) doesn't have any cited in it at this time. I.e., it's entirely possible that Wikipedia:Notability can be satisfied with some effort. I don't see anyone saying here whether they have tried to ascertain whether this is likely to be sourceable as notable. It's also possible that there are no such sources for this piece, but I am at least slightly skeptical that someone would have written as much as was written, engaged us here, assured us that it's still in progress, etc., if the article were utter nonsense. Sure, it does happen from time to time, but most hoax articles a "drive-by" edits. There is also a stronger likelihood that the main author is connected in some way with the organization sponsoring the alleged tournaments, or one of their promoters, which could raise some WP:COI/WP:SPAM issues, but does not necessarily mean that a good article couldn't eventually come out of this one the editor understands our policies more fully. If there are sources, I would expect them to be Philly, et al., newspapers and such, so Google may not be much help. I spent weeks trying to source another game, known by hundreds of thousands if not more, and played remarkably consistently all over at least North America, and it was very, very difficult to find anything, because it is a "folk" game, "ya just know how to play; everyone does" I was told when I contacted a venue that actually holds tournaments in that game, but has no printed rules. Our reliance on e-sources is perhaps too heavy. Anyway, if this game really is the subject organized competition in several major cities, dating back over a decade, it's absolutely noteworthy enough for an article (and like Fuhghettabout, I am generally quite quick to prod/SD/AfD any WP:NFT pool games like Indians Don't Share Lunches, so I'm generally unsympathetic to things like this); it's just a matter of demonstrating that notability with a couple of references. Sorry for the ramble; just feel this stuff is worth thinking about (generally in AfD, not just in this nomination). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and I've even tried keep votes on the basis that "Well it might be notable, if somebody could find some sources" .. that argument has never worked, and doesn't seem to be backed by any policy. spazure (contribs) 11:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to say it should be kept on that basis, but rather that we should do legwork to find out whether there are reliable sources for the claims in the article (I just did, and there aren't!) I kind of see that as a duty of the AfD participant, per WP:IDONTKNOWIT - you have to either come to know it or come to find that its not worth knowing. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it is an hoax, but it is certainly not notable. Havardk 11:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete even if this is true, the author has effectively stated that it isn't notable (in the wikipedian sense); not notable yet is still not notable. SamBC 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Userspace it, and assume good faith I do not see any reason for all the assumptions of bad faith up there. This article should be deleted because it does not (yet?) demonstrate the topic's notability, with independent reliable sources, and it is confused and fragmentary to the extent that it can plausibly said to be patent nonsense as it stands. One need not throw around words like "hoax" without strong justification (e.g. Disguised space aliens in the U.S. Congress). Gaspan, on the assumption that you can demonstrate with third-party sources (newspaper articles, etc.) that the game is actually popularly played in several major metropolitan areas, it could actually be notable enough (perhaps as a section of a larger article rather than a separate one, but that's of little consequence), if it is actually put together as an article, and not a bunch of fragments of incompleted thoughts (e.g., I've never seen a "Rules" section that didn't mention any rules! :-). I encourage you to copy your work so far into User:Gaspan/Sandbox (since it will probably be deleted as an article before you can complete it) and work on it there, especially after reading The Manual of Style and its subguidelines, and famililarizing yourself with other policies & guidelines that I believe Fuhghettaboutit has already refered you to. Feel free to ask other editors if they think the result is ready for prime-time when you think it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Most of that is no longer applicable; I instead have a "delete" !vote below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to some !voters here: A few of you appear to be still, somehow, operating under the ca. 2004-5 "fame and popularity" conception of notability, an idea long abandoned. Please actually read WP:N before throwing it around in AfD. Notability means non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, period. "Not yet well-known" does not automatically translate into "non-notable". A great many notable things are not well-known, and a great many well-known things, like the fact that boogers are salty, are not notable. I'm skeptical that the author of this article will be able to demonstrate notability, but that's no reason to attack him with accusations of hoaxing, or attempt to fallaciously bend his own words against him ("not well known" coming from him almost certainly meant "not well known outside the [alleged] significant area in which it is well known") in a rather tortured reinterpretation of WP:N. Play fair. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Response Fair enough. Vote modified. spazure (contribs) 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Update: Actually Speedy delete per G1: The game rules recently added to the article are (in summary form) precisely those of common eight-ball so the article's premise that this is a notable and variant version of eight-ball is "patent nonsense" under CSD G1: it is "unsalvageably incoherent" reasoning, that "while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) It is blantant made-up-one-day stuff, it's just that "one day" was over a decade ago. This game, while real and not a hoax, is the product of a single family and their friends. While I think the article was created in good faith, it was a mistake, one that many new editors make here. Take something fun that you and your buddies do and exaggerate its importance (i.e. the business about it being played in multiple cities, and there being a National Tournament really means that some friend or family member in a different city plays it with the rest of the gang when he visits Philly.) Took a while to dig it up, but here's the "lost" website of the inventor. It's hard to navigate because archive.org often drops a lot of images and even entire pages, but all you need to look at is the "history", "rules" and "records" pages to see that this, while amusing, is the furthest thing from encyclopedic. The "records" list, which is just a scoresheet of all the regular players, demonstrates that you could fit all of them into one living room with a keg of beer. ;-) I apologize if I might have come off as too protective/credulous of a sketchy article, but see Golf (pool)#"Around-the-world" variant - equally suspicious at first glance (I know I was!), but quite real and sourced, all the way back to 1947, with genuine organized tournaments – it's really hard to tell with these things sometimes. That one wasn't notable enough for a separate article (but goof ball wouldn't've been either; if it had survived AfD, I would have merged it into Eight-ball under the American variants section.) So, there we have it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment No worries. I actually like seeing people fight for articles -- because I always have an open mind, and very rarely is my !vote ever set in stone, so I like seeing the arguments for both sides, no matter what my current stance is. spazure (contribs) 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though I've never even heard of a game called "Goof Ball" that does not mean it is not true! I'm almost sure that some group of people, somewhere know a whole lot about "Goof Ball" yet are not speaking out. This lately created sport may be played internationally (or may just fall into extinction)yet it does contain some encyclopedic information. Also You cannot say something does not exist just because it does not have a website!!!. All the searches being conducted related to Goof Ball have been done through the internet! This is becoming a growing problem on Wikipedia, and well... its actually has little of a solution since there are thousands of places to look. (But once someone finds the goldmine of information related to Goof Ball, this page can be verified.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIERthanU (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2007
  • Delete: Unless you can point me to some news article or independent website. Wikipedia is not a place for independent research. Chengwes 07:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Goof Ball is not the only cue-sport page that is unreferenced. Note that the billiard games "Rotation" and "Chicago" are also unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIERthanU (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 July 2007.
  • Reply comment: Please sign your posts, and please stop putting your comments at the top of this page; they go at the bottom (or indented and underneath one that you are responding to). The argument you present here is invalid and a non sequitur; please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The short version is: The fact that something else in Wikipedia is bad does not mean that something new that is bad, but which you happen to like, should or will be kept. Just because your brother hit you in the nose does not make it right for you to kick your neighbor's dog. That said, the articles you flag as unsourced are eminently sourceable, and Goof ball is not (at all). I've already just now sourced Rotation (pool) very reliably, and am about to do that with Chicago (pool), so thank you for bringing those to our attention; they will be better articles now. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 29 July 2007 (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.