Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwack 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. W.marsh 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zwack Ball

Zwack Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have serious concerns about this being made up in school one day. i kan reed 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete unsourced, WP:NFT. Google for "Zwack ball" "Codie Mitchell" brings up only this article. Kavadi carrier 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. hateless 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't speedy possible here? Pascal.Tesson 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find a criteria that it meets. I think it's somewhat obvious the direction the afd will go, but process is process, and someone removed the prod. i kan reed 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason why something like this isn't speedyable (as I understand it) is that a speedy might involve only two editors – one tagging it and an admin deleting it. (Only one in some circumstances, if an admin deletes on sight). A game like this might be well-known as being notable somewhere; the fact that two people haven't heard of it is not sufficient to speedy it. AfD allows a wider population to look at the article. Having said that it does look very like a madey-up thing to me. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's never sufficient reason for deletion. Dumb things can be completely verifiable and culturally relevant(see:Intelligent Design). i kan reed 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lijnema 13:54, 12 November 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.