Talk:Hamster racing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Wikipedia staff - please leave this page the hell alone. One of you apparently keeps deleting it. Get a life and go away. Hamster racing is relatively new so OF COURSE there aren't a whole lot of hits on it yet. Jeeze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will 210 (talk • contribs)

Perfect candidate for criteria for speedy deletion A7 —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

Contents 1 Refuting Request for speedy Deletion 2 It's real folks! 3 More links 4 Importance ? 5 "Origins" original research 6 Removed origins section... original research timed-out 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Onlinehamsterbetting.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Mtv hamtrak06.jpg

[edit] Refuting Request for speedy Deletion

While Google may not return many results, I haven't checked. But I do feel the author makes good assertions about notability. I would move that we let the author finish his article (as he is new and making heavy revisions to it currently). If when he's finished, then I would move for a standard AfD process if that is still warranted. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 06:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I just read all the criteria for speedy deletion, and none of the ones mentioned at the top of this article are valid: "shows no relevant Google hits for hamster racing, HamTrak 2006, or Professional Hamster Racing" is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion; "asserts no notability" is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion as that only applies to people and bands. I suggest you reread wikipedia's deletion criteria and go away.

[edit] It's real folks!

Believe it or not, this actually appears to be a legitimate "sport" [1] Unless anyone has any objections I propose removing the speedy delete tag. --Centauri 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more references (from Google, incidentally - it helps if you look a little further than the first 10 results people!): [2], [3]. --Centauri 07:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nice try with the links above; I was almost convinced until I clicked on them. Anyway, considering that the article's creator has made constant edits, I'm sure the deletion tag will continue to be removed and reverted. I suggest all take a look at the relevancy and number of Google hits for things in the article such as Professional Hamster Racing, HamTrack '06, and even hamster racing to see the notability and popularity of the subject at hand. I can be content at waiting for a finalized article before it gets sent to AfD.

—№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 07:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All 3 of my references above directly refute your imputation that the article content is nonsense. I suggest you actually read them. --Centauri 07:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"considering that the article's creator has made constant edits, I'm sure the deletion tag will continue to be removed and reverted." Can we have an English translation of this please? Are you suggesting that "constant edits" is reason for adding a speedy deletion tag? If so you are misinformed concerning Wikipedia's deletion policy. --Centauri 07:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to the reversion war and the difficulties that would arise if that continued. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 07:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Centauri, I've agreed to concede and allow the article to be completely finished before I make further actions towards a deletion, which will most likely have to take place in the AfD. What I was saying is that the article was being edited and expanded, whereas the deletion tag was constantly removed despite warnings of removing deletion tags on one's own created article. I have nothing against the concept of "hamster racing" or any of the editors of the article; I am just a new article deletionist, and this one caught my eye, especially with the lack of relevant sources found through a simple Google search. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

• I ran a "simple Google search" and found 2 media articles and a link to a UK betting agency that takes bets on hamster races. I'm interested to hear how these do not constitute "relevant sources" - particularly as you've made a point of describing these links as "bogus". I'm also interested to note your comments about "the AfD", as though this were a fait accomplit. As the article is not vanity, complete nonsense or original research I fail to see how it constitutes a legitimate AfD target. --Centauri 08:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• In your sources, do they mention anything more than the two words "hamster" and "racing" together in one sentence? How can you back up your notability claim with a gambling website? How does the gambling website show hamster racing's importance? It doesn't mention anything about the "sport," except for that people gamble on it. People gamble on everything, and you might as well find a MySpace account to use as an external link. In time, we'll let the consenses decide that. Until then, I have nothing further to say. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

• I really have to question why we are having this discussion if you haven't actually read references you're already on record as describing as "bogus". Furthermore I have made no "notability" claim. "Notability" is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability is. --Centauri 08:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. "Notability is not an inclusion in Wikipedia? Verifiability is?" If I can verify that my non-notable dick is 7" long, does that meet your criteria for inclusion? All jokes aside; maybe if you can make a notability claim, this argument wouldn't be happening. You have me on record for calling your references "bogus"; that's verifiable; give me an article! You've got things messed up. You have no notability claim, as you even stated. My argument is that you have no notability claim for hamster racing. Your argument is that you have no notability claim for hamster racing. We are BOTH arguing that there is no notability claim for hamster racing! Let me point out some "references" to Wikipedia's policy on notability. "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy... 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." Wikipedia's statements on verifiability are that "the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, get to work. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

• Permit me to summarise: 1. You slapped a speedy delete on this article - presumably because you assumed it was complete nonsense. 2. You claimed that a Google search returned no "meaningful" results on the subject of hamster racing. 3. I performed a Google search on the subject of hamster racing which did return a number of "meaningful" results (3 of which I provided links to above - so let's give the "show me an article" disingenuity a rest now) which confirmed that not only is hamster racing verifiably real, but that it had been a subject of reportage and promotion in the international media. You can talk about "notability" till the cows come home; it's entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion, the purpose of which was to establish if, in fact, there is such a sport as hamster racing. --Centauri 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More links

Thank you for waiting Notorious. I hope that this way we can avoid nasty arguments, as well as help Will learn more about Wikipedia in the process.

I'd rather not argue notability at this point (save it for an AfD if and when it comes), but I tried searching Google for a few other variants ("Hamster racing") for me returns Boston Globe (2001) in 2nd place (I am using personalized search, so that may skew result placement). ("Hamster racing" England) gave me this this press release among the results[4].

I'll be interested in seeing how this article turns out. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 07:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the article, even if the topic itself is kind of frivolous. But that's one of the nice things about Wikipedia -- it covers obscure things. Anyway, hamster racing is mentioned by the good ol' BBC as a charity event [5], an incident on the beachfront at Blackpool [6], and in Russia [7]. So the thing seems to be real rather than a hoax. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance ?

I believe the "importance" tag is misplaced and should be removed. It has already been established at at least one British betting agency takes bets (in real money) on hamster races. It has further been established that MTV and several other media outlets have reported on, and promoted hamster racing as described (and illustrated) in the article. This suggests that the subject is of some commercial value to its stakeholders, and has come to the attention of - at least - tens of thousands of people. --Centauri 08:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please see the actually MTV show mentioned in the article. Here is a quick link to its numerous articles. Please see my comment above concerning the betting agency and its failure to assert a reputable source. The importance tag was created with the intent to be added to articles like this one. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

• When people provide links it's usually a good idea to look at them [8]. I have no idea what you're talking about re the betting agency. It's real. It takes bets on hamster races. It's stated in black and white on their website, and discussed in at least 2 different media sources. Are you saying that the betting agency doesn't know what's on their own website? --Centauri 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks guys sorry I got upset it's just that somebody deleted the article twice while I was editing it and I had to start over. It bugs me that one person can just sweep through and get rid of anything he or she doesn't know about or like. And no I can't write 5000 words on it in one sitting, it will take days or even weeks as more information becomes available. The sport of hamster racing is still in its infancy, though we've seen that it's "big" in the UK. And by "big" it might be esoteric and it might be strange and even silly, but it's real, and of interest to more people than probably 75% of the other stuff that's on here. There are a half dozen links at the bottom of the article to everything from MTV to CNN reporting not only on professional hamster racing but amateur (usually kids) hamster racing. I have no stake in the matter other than an interest in seeing it accurately discussed on wikipedia. People should be made to write a dozen articles here before they can delete any so they know what it's like. (And just because something isn't big [yet] on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Step outside every once in awhile.)

It's cool dude, just remember to keep a cool head in the future. Happy wikipeding! Another way to avoid this sort of conflict in the future is to create a subpage off of your user page (you'll have to be signed in for this) and build the article there, then move it into the main space when it's ready. I also think there's a place where you can request other editors to come and look at and comment on your page too (my mind is a bit shot currently as it is approaching 4am CST currently. I would also like to request that you use the Edit summaries box in the future (just a few words on what you did with each edit). This will help us alot when we're reviewing articles. Again best of luck, and don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. Goodnight everyone --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 08:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Wikipedia includes many unusual articles. Some of us happen to think that these types of articles are interesting, useful and entertaining. Others disagree, and suggest that a subject's "notability" should determine if it is included or deleted. It's important to note that verifiability - and not notability - is the only formal Wikipedia policy criterion for deciding what should go and what should stay - although many editors use "notability" as a criterion for voting on articles that are nominated for deletion anyway. One final thing - please sign your comments in future so we know who we're talking to. You can do this by typing 4 tildes (ie ~~~~ at the end of the sentence). --Centauri 08:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• In a final comment, just because you're new doesn't mean that I will personally show sympathy toward you, your article, or your derogatory remarks. However, I will point you to Wikipedia's procedures. Just because something has the "potential" to be big is not a incentive for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:NOT). To say that hamster racing is "of interest to more people than probably 75% of the other stuff that's on here" is a terribly unverifiable thing to say. I'm not discouraging you from making future edits— I have created numerous articles with no problems, however. You will realize that experienced editors are here to help, unless we are outside, as you so claimed that we are never. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

• I'd venture to suggest that hamster racing is at least as "notable" as computer games such such as Mortal Kombat - which despite being of nil or (at best) marginal interest to the vast majority of people seems to have a preposterous number of Wikipedia articles devoted to it. People in glass houses should be very careful where they lob stones. --Centauri 09:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare Mortal Kombat to hamster racing. A games that sells millions of copies is certainly superior to a "sport" that cannot even produce a valid website, sources, or notability or relevancy and recognition. Nice try though. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 14:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just how many times are you going to regurgitate this "no valid sources" line of yours? The more you repeat the lie the more foolish you look. --Centauri 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• In one week's time, the article will appear on AfD. My argument is more solid then yours; you can attempt to prove the importance of the "sport" in question and argue as to whether or not it is encyclopedically noteworthy. If this is going to be an argument of verifiability versus notability, then it's going to be up to the AfD consenses to decide that matter. You can verify the sport until your face turns blue, but when it comes down to it, notability saves articles when it comes to deletion, whether you want to personally believe that or not. If you spent as much time on the AfD as you claim, then you would realize that. The most common deletion vote you will see will be presented as "Delete. non-notable." There are several things concerning this topic and the article that are in violation of the policies of what Wikipedia is not. Our disagreement should and will be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. That's all I have to say; see you soon. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

It's been a long week. --Centauri 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Origins" original research

The section ("Origins") contains mostly original research as it lacks sources for the history of this sport, and even with sources the structure of the section makes novel connections between subjects. I suspect that some assertions contained in the section are fundamentally unsourceable, as well. A section on the origins of the sport is obviously topical and relevant, but I think this section needs to be scrapped and entirely rewritten from what few sources exist, if any, for the good of the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Once you've done the research and can replace the section in question with something better, feel free to do so.

[edit] Removed origins section... original research timed-out

Soon after hamsters were domesticated in the 1930s, owners and breeders began noticing that the tiny rodents enjoyed running and could be trained to compete against other hamsters in races. But they also realized that hamsters would not naturally align themselves on a track to make reliable races possible.

It wasn't until the advent of modern plastic molding techniques that the contemporary hamster ball became available. The new technology made true hamster racing possible because hamsters could now be housed in protective shells that could then be confined within lanes to prevent the hamsters from escaping and to ensure the racers could reliably reach the finish line.

In the past decade spherical hamster balls have been phased out in favor of "hamster wheels" (seen in the photo above) which are cylindrical and roll like a tire, thereby making sure that the hamster can only move the vehicle forward or backward and won't waste its energy trying to run perpendicular to the lane. The most modern race vehicles feature ratcheting mechanisms so that the hamster can only move forward down the track.

Until about 2001 almost all hamster races were amateur or for small personal wagers. The United Kingdom changed that concept and developed modern professional hamster racing.

This suspected "original research" section has remained untouched for over one year now. With no sources documented at this time, it compromises the validity of the article, per Wikipedia standards for mentioning facts with uncertainty. In such cases, the information should be moved to the talk page for further debate. So, here it is posted above. Notorious4life 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Onlinehamsterbetting.jpg

Image:Onlinehamsterbetting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mtv hamtrak06.jpg

Image:Mtv hamtrak06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)