Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoe golf

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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoe golf

Hoax/goof/spam. Article seems to be the creation of a sports retailer (see Ext link). All of the writer's edits are to or related to this article. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I reply to this (have tried to read but can't find info! Apologies if it's wrong.

This is my first wiki, so I'm a little confused as to why you think that this being the only article I currently have linked to is a big surprise. I have removed the 2nd external link, though that was there as the point of entry for the shoe golf championship, as it seems that offended you. Please, if you can find any other info on shoe golf, other than the shoegolfassociation please link to it. I am literally just trying to publish a wiki on a game I love playing with my friends, and have linked to it from golf (as it's a variation) and also from street games...as it is one! If you watch my editing highlights over the next week or so you'll see that I'm a sensible person, and that my intention isn't to spam, nor to spoil a great resource...merely to add to it.

On a truthful note, yes I have done work for Ochosports, but as I said, they're one of the places I can find info about shoe golf, so the link IS relevant imho.

User:Chris_white_22 | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• Delete In the first two paragraphs we have the admissions "little known" and "relatively unknown". In Wikipedia terminology that means "Not notable". Fan1967 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT. Chris, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. In order to be included in the Wikipedia it has to be verifiable from reliable sources. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read up on the verifiability and there are admittedly very few sites detailing shoe golf; that said they do exist. If I were to find relevant links on shoe golf, and other sites with info, would this be a good way of trying to maintain this sports wikified status? User talk:Chris_white_22 15:16, 5 May 2006 (BST)

A suggestion-- let the deletion go through. Then, later on (probably much later) after you have a substantial number of reliable sources discussing the sport, add the article again. Encyclopedias really aren't the place for things just getting started. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mwanner - I've tried to include some relevant links from decent sources that I can find, and I see your point about new stuff and encyclopedias, but shoe golf isn't "new" it's just that (in the UK at least) it's just getting big. Globally it's been around ages...perhaps not in Florida though! -- User:chris_white_22 | 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Yes, for example the book that's mentioned in the Amazon link. If it more than just mentions Shoe Golf, meaning if there is good information in the article that came from that book, then you would need to cite it and that might be good enough. There is a way to cite books by their ISBN, I don't know how to do it myself though. Citing the book itself rather than a link to it through Amazon would definitely help as long as information from that book was used in the article. On the other hand, while the myspace link could definitely go in the external links section, myspace is far from a reliable source. Hope that helps. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT

Hang on, not much in terms of feelings in regard to shoegolf but I take exception at what some of you are trying to do. When did you personally decide on what an encyclopedia is or is not for! This is arrogance at a huge scale.

"Definition encyclopedia" a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which deal either with the whole of human knowledge or with a particular part of it: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language"

or

encyclopedia, compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields) or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field).

If someone is trying to use this resource to add credibility to a specific sport this is helping everyone and making this place a centre of knowledge not just a place where people with way too much arrogance define the word encyclopedia. Points regarding commeriality are obviously valid however it you were to look at almost any sport they start out with a couple of clever companies seeing that they can attach there name to something new, kind of like hoover attached its name to the vacuum cleaner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skelligs (talk • contribs) .

• Actually, none of us here decided what an encyclopedia is for. However, a large number of our users/readers decided what Wikipedia is not for and in conjunction with that we have some notability guidelines that help us along the way. I am recommending delete based on a lack of reliable sources, notability, and WP:NFT. --Hetar 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia is exactly not for use to add credibility to a specific sport. See WP:WWIN. You get notable first, then you get a Wikipedia article. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, the sheer, unmitigated arrogance is kinda breathtaking, isn't it. That's us, though, to a tee. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, something must be notable in order to be included in Wikipedia, not be included in Wikipedia to become notable. Also, when accessing home page, I get an Access denied - You are not authorized to access this page Not a good external link if you can't go there to verify the contents. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it appears to be real, even if it's idiotic. - Richardcavell 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ReyBrujo Scranchuse 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just because it's real doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia page. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Richard - I prefer odd, rather than idotic! Normal golf is idiotic...all that time chasing after a little ball. Why not make it biger, courses could be smaller, and less time spent looking for the ball! In many ways I would argue that Shoe Golf is notable purely for it's lack of a great knowledge base, it's a lot like, many other games that have become popular without anything really being written down. Take a look at the wiki's on Extreme Croquet for example - that page lists (externally) 20 clubs in the world who alledgedly play, yet that has been deemed more notable than shoe golf? Parce que?

On the show golf mention in the book the wiki links to (well, the amazon details of it), in the front matter the author describes that he was an avid shoe golfer before he cared for teh real thing, and also describes the rules to shoe golf around page 60 (and those of frisbee golf too). I will grab the ISBN number, and see if I can find out how to cite a book properly! User:Chris_white_22 07:51, 8 May 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.