Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedBall

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 as original research with insufficient independent sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RedBall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and unverifiable pool game. This may not be a hoax but it's a game I (being an expert in this topic area) have never heard of or come across and I can find not a single source mentioning it, much less substantive treatment in reliable sources from which the statements in the article could be verified. ← That was my prod rationale. Upon removal, the creator added to the article: "this game is not a well-known or well-documented game".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything on the internet to back it up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game has been spread primarily by word of mouth. This game has NO relation to the real game of pool besides obviously using the pool table and two balls. Because of that, pool experts are not expected to know about this game. I could not find anything else about this game online either, so that's why I created this page. I've received multiple requests from friends to make some kind of consolidated rule list. Most of the time, people ask to play this game out of the blue because it was something they learned at college or with their family. It's more of a "street game". Let's work on helping notify readers that this article is not official or related to pool, but certainly not delete it. How should we best go about that? --Joshwenke (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshwenke: Josh: it's a decent write-up and valuable – for some other place. You might see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. You're obviously posting in good faith but you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Have you read the two pages linked in my nomination? An encyclopedia is by its nature a tertiary source, that details what is already known through previous publication in the wider world. It is not for announcing new things or original publication. Wikipedia is constrained from doing so by the its nature as an encyclopedia, and not some other type of reference work. Since you admit this is an emerging game, not already the subject of mainstream knowledge and previous publication in reliable sources, you are in effect stating, and in the most fundamental way, that this material does not belong here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're into finger billiards as this appears to be a form of then you should know about Yank Adams, who was a household name at one time but who the world has forgotten about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Article started by WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself argues for deletion when it says "this game is not a well-known or well-documented game". Please see the guideline WP:MADEUP which applies to this case precisely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cue sports: Google has very little on this, but there's a joint in Darlington, England called "Redball Pool and Snooker", so the moniker has enough local interest to support a business name. Normally that might rate a 'Keep', but the article at this point is all original research. Pax — Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that the game, which is brand new, is the source of the name of the joint, rather than that it is named after the red ball--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.