Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotball

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lotball

Non-notable made up game. Googling "lotball" returns 180 hits, "Federation of Lotball" returns 4 hits (quoted it returns 0 hits). It appears to have originated on this myspace page. Delete — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


If anyone saw what was formerly posted here, it was an error.

If I am not mistaken, several local Federation Lotball groups may be found in recreational societies and intermural programs found in the the Hudson Valley Region of New York, and these groups are rapidly expanding.

  • Delete unless actual sources confirm this. Ned Wilbury 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lotball is an entirely valid sport. I would know, being a member of the Lotball Regulatory Commission (LRC). I can personally vouch for lotball's existence as a completely real and organized sport, and board meetings continue daily in order to better define and regulate the game. *Do not delete

Captain Cowboy 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am secretary of the LRC and if wanted I can summit minutes from previous meetings and an agenda for the Commission. *Do not delete

Doesn't the fact that we're discussing this prove that it is notable or, at the very least, that it exists? This page has now had several different contributors and I'm sure that if the hit count was known for this site, you would find that it has had an abnormally large impact for a brand new article. I understand the neccesity for putting articles up for deletion, like spam, advertising, multiple articles on the same subject, or "non notable" topics, but does this article really fit under any of those? It is obviously not spam or advertising, and this is the only lotball article on Wikipedia. Though some may claim that it is supposedly "nn," what truly defines an article as notable? I have often surfed Wikipedia and found articles on mindless garbage I don't care about. The truth of the matter is that those articles might not matter to me, but they do matter to someone, they do matter to those who know what the article is about and those who wish to learn. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, those who wish to learn? I love Wikipedia and I love the ideals for which it stands. I would never want to make something that would be harmfull to its goals. I ask you to please uphold the ideals of Wikipedia and keep this article. -INVENTM

  • Comment, This discussion does not prove that it is notable. For guidelines on notability, see notability. A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am new to wikipedia and I do admit that I am a noob. But I believe you should not hold that against me just because like everyone else, I must start somewere.
  • Comment, This AfD is not meant to be a personal attack. I am not "holding anything against anyone." I was just pointing out the notability guidelines. More importantly, the article does not cite any of it's statements from sources so it isn't verifiabile and because you are so closely tied to the game, the content is likely to be biased original research. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. My apologies
  • Comment,

"or should be because of its particular importance or impact." Ah, I see now. Wikipedia:Notability: "This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline." Yes, I do see. "There is no official policy on where the line of notability lies." Yup. "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included; meeting one or more of these criteria does not mean that a subject must be included." Uh huh. "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research. However, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is not a strictly limited set of criteria for deletion. Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now." Sure.

"Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion." Though we all know about the dangers of assumptions, right? And note the use of the very word: assumption; it is not a rule, not even a guideline.

"Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such." This is Lotball, right here. What's the harm? Really, what's the harm? Go ahead, tell me that the lotball article is not encyclopedic. It is not a vanity page, it is not a spam page; it is a thoughtfull, formal article on a topic that deserves to be included in the vast servers of Wikipedia. Please consider these points and judge lotball honestly and neutrally. Thank You. -INVENTM

Inventm, you should also read these pages: WP:V, WP:NPOV WP:OR. They are more important than the notability guidelines. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:43, 9 March 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.