Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggest ball of twine


 * 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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Biggest ball of twine
OK, this article has been around for a while now and so this may prove to be a controversial nomination, but hey-ho it's done now !! Wikipedia is not a list of indescriminate information, nor is it The Guinness Book of Records David Humphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The introduction should be fleshed out a little but the subject is certainly notable. Crabapplecove 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is a compendium of human knowledge. And if the subject of balls of twine has been discussed in multiple published works that are independent of their subjects, such as this, this, this, and this (and indeed this), then it's safe to say that the subject forms part of the corpus of human knowledge.  Yes, this article cites no sources at all and that should be fixed.  But deletion doesn't do that.  This article is a prime example of why one should always cite sources, right from the very first edit.  Articles on unusual subjects that cite sources rarely get nominated for deletion, let alone deleted.  Keep. Uncle G 01:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable to me. HighInBC 03:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We've got the biggest balls of them all. --Xrblsnggt 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: They're the ones we like the best. --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G.--Chaser T 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the biggest ball of twine thing is well known and I think it is notable enough for inclusion. However, I don't think we should have articles about the largest pie, chocolate bar and such. -- Kjkolb 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should if there are multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their sources that discuss them. A common error of thinking is "If we have article on X then we may have article on Y.".  Verifiability and No original research, however, imply that Wikipedia should reflect whatever topics are extant in secondary source material.  Whether a related topic has secondary source material is irrelevant if the topic at hand has none. Uncle G 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and maybe include in WP:UA? --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep due to it's notability in pop culture (Weird Al Yankovic song, for example) and general notability :D Computerjoe 's talk 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect weakly: Of all the roadside attractions and follies, this one has the best claim to requiring a solo treatment, but I should still prefer all of these uniquities discussed in a single place. If it's kept, it's not a crime.  Geogre 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per computerjoe
 * Keep and expand. — Michael J 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the big ball of twine concept seems encyclopedic, if anything I have trouble with the title, which IS very "Guiness book of records", though at present I have no better suggestion. Artw 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. Erechtheus 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Uncle G. It's almost physically painful to admit, but this does appear to be encyclopedic. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge marginally noteworthy details with Twine. Not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. Details about the largest ball of twine is not "part of the corpus of human knowledge". It is not really knowledge. Bwithh 06:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This distinct Guinness Records content is more appropriate as a "see also" link from that article, which it is already.--Chaser T 08:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is notable. The pretty much universal primary notability criterion (see WP:WEB, WP:CORP, et al.) is that something is notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are from sources independent of the subject itself.  This topic clearly is.  See the published works that I hyperlinked to earlier.  (I carefully omitted works published by the owners and promoters of the various balls of twine for this very reason.)  And, whilst you may think that it shouldn't be, this is something that humans know (The very last hyperlink that I gave even comments on the commonality of this knowledge.) and therefore is a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 11:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a general rule, I wouldn't expect roadside attractions to pass notability, but the biggest ball of twine i snot just another roadside attraction. It's a special case as an almost archetypical roadside attraction. -- Whpq 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G and Computerjoe. Definitely notable and not just another world record; I'm surprised there don't seem to be more reliable sources than those already listed, too. - makomk 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - pop culture icon.  Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  23:38, 23 July 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.