Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water-balloon-pingpong

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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water-balloon-pingpong

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

Proverbial "thing someone made up one day". Also, Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. I would have requested speedy, but there doesn't appear to be a category for it. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I used CSD, because I considered calling a made-up sport a "famous sport" from Iceland vandalism. The author is purposefully introducing factually inaccurate information to wikipedia, which falls under Db:-vandalism. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has only created this one article, I am pretty sure that won't fly as vandalism if it is possible (and it is) that the edit was made in good faith but with a very bad understanding of Wikipedia. ie: WP:BITE The "claim" is it being "famous". Yes, rubbish, but that is why I just brought to afd. Most admins (from my experience) wouldn't consider it vandalism, just a bad article. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a "thing made up one day" in "Gisli's garage whith Arni sverrir" with no reasonable claim of notability. Edison (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~Delete. Sounds like fun! However it was just WP:MADEUP one day in their garage. It even says so in the article. No sources in Google News, Scholar, or Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the regular way as this does not fall into any of the speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking criterion A7 for content that does not indicate why its subject is important, and in fact in this case content that indicates its subject is not important. I am perfectly happy with it being deleted the normal way, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A7 applies to individuals, animals, organizations, web content. This isn't any of those. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Water-balloon-pingpong is a famous sport is a claim. Otherwise, I would have A7'ed it. My experience has been that even a weak claim gets kicked out. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies. I just checked, and of course you are right. I've changed my !vote to delete. I shall have to read the CSD page more carefully when I next have the chance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note A7 only applies for individuals, animals, organizations, and web content. The only criterion that might have applied was G3. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Duh, me I knew that, don't know why I keep saying A7. Maybe we can get one or two more deletes and declare WP:SNOW. I'm pretty sure the outcome is obvious, even now. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Maybe we should look for sources. It's unlikely, but it could actually be "famous" at least in Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themane2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did try looking for English language sources, but I didn't have any luck. That's not to say that there definitely aren't any, but I think it's unlikely. I wouldn't have the first clue about how to search for Icelandic language sources... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - http://www.mybigcampus.com/items/water-balloon-ping-pong-ball?v4016fd00-57cc-012e-3b51-423c383b1978--Themane2 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        How is that in any way relevant? -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is getting coverage in indepndent sources--Themane2 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That video is of something different than what the article is talking about. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (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.