Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquatic Volleyball


 * 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 no consensus -- Y not? 03:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aquatic Volleyball

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

When I dip into this incredible 12k byte slab of dense text it seems to be just the rules of the game. No assertion of notability. Even if it were notable, the best thing is rub-it-out-and-start-again. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. "Dense" is being nice. "Unreadable" is more apt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's a topic that doens't appear to be otherwise covered. I'm surprised that there isn't an article already about this, particularly after the broken nose scene in Meet the Parents.  Folks, let's not make fun of a new contributor.  Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and no matter how excellent you think your own writing skills may be, we are always refining our talents.  I'll volunteer to do the cleanup, but I would encourage AVAH20 to give it a shot first.  If "denseman" or "unreadable guy" don't think you're as good as they are, who cares?  Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks or wikisource, and replace with a stub. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep and tag for cleanup (or prod). I've run across worse.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment perhaps I'm missing something but why on earth would you propose keep in the afd and then suggest prodding the article? Seems contradictory. I'm not disagreeing with a cleanup tag, but I don't see the connection to your other idea Travellingcari (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I find evidence for sales of a pool volleyball and classes in aquatics but what I don't find is RS coverage of its notability. It was played in a film and some people apparently convert their pools for use as a court, but I'd think a sport that has a 'championship' (per the link in the article) would have some coverage. Unless it's under another name? Travellingcari (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a legitimate sport, so what's the problem? It needs a cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable enough.TheNextOne (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - the subject and the article are two different things. The subject is sufficiently notable. The article is dense but that is not a criterion for deletion. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Volleyball variations and leave as redirect to that article. As I thought of how to rewrite it all I could come up with was a short paragraph saying that it is like volleyball except played in a pool. The rules are essentially the same - and references indicate that it's usually played for fun without official rules. The one EL to an "official" site is broken. I don't see enough to make a full article, but it's worth keeping as a section in the Variations article. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the writing is denser than the core of a black hole, but it seems to be a notable pasttime. Kudos to those who have volunteered to assist in cleaning this up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the author is very good at using a lot of words to say very little:
 * "A duration is an amount of time or a particular time interval. For example, an event in the common sense has a duration greater than zero (but not very long), but in certain specialized senses (such as in the theory of relativity), a duration of zero. A stopwatch is a timepiece designed to measure the amount of time elapsed from a particular time when activated to when the piece is deactivated. The stopwatch is typically designed to start at the press of the top button and stop by pressing the button a second time to display the elapsed time. A press of the second button then resets the stopwatch to zero. The second button is also used to record split times or lap times. When the split time button is pressed while the watch is running, the display freezes, but the watch mechanism continues running to record total elapsed time. Pressing the split button a second time allows the watch to resume display of total time."
 * Somehow I suspect that the author was laughing when he wrote the article and is now laughing at how seriously we are discussing his contribution. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (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.