Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph-ball

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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steph-ball

Silly neologism, no source. Delete. Freshgavin 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original Research. D. G. 03:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Please do NOT move to Wiktionary. 195.144.130.1 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom /Rjayres 17:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable and Original Research --Amxitsa 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• This is a FANTASTIC entry and i have tried to play the game and it is fabulous!!!!!!! Please DO NOT delete this article! (preceding comment by 194.82.51.28, copied here from the AfD article's talk page) --Ashenai (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. --Ashenai (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. October 2005? This is virtually an unsourced, non-notable current event. Rd232 16:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a variation on Kozakti-ball, but with no scoring system. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Variation is the basis for evolution; wikipedia is about open-source information free to all - even if it is not in accordance with the letter of wikipedia law it is in tune with the spirit of wikipedia; do not delete this article (preceding comment by user:194.82.51.28)</small)

you miss the point. Kozakti-ball doesn't belong in here, because it was just a made-up game played by a couple a dozen friends over the course of a few years. Steph-ball is a similar made up game that has no place in wikipedia. it's probable that thousands of different similar games with variations have existed briefly then stopped. If Steph-ball was the common name of all these variations worldwide, it would be encyclopaedic. It isn't. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 21 October 2005 (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.