Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall


 * 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The result was no consensus as the AfD has been superseded to Articles for deletion/BulletBall 2. -- DarkFalls talk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BulletBall
(View log)
 * Speedy Keep - The product was featured on national TV and a website is listed with information on the game. Plenty notable, considering other sports/games with wikipedia articles.  Malan89 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes it was on TV but did you notice it was rejected? It's a non notable game, the fact that there is other stuff thats on Wikipedia thats just as non notable isn't a valid argument see OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Whispe ring  18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't find any reliable sources asserting its notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I wasn't sure if non-admins could post here. Anyway, the article should be deleted, as it is not very notable, but someone should make an article called "List of inventions shown on American Inventor" and put it there. Codelyoko193  Talk 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-admins are absolutely welcome to chime in at AFD discussions. That said, beyond the appearance on American Inventor, where it was quickly eliminated, I don't see it as having any notability.  AFAIK, none of the other inventions from either season of the show have their own pages, including the first season's winning invention.  The first season's winning inventor has a page, but he's the only inventor with a page.  So IMHO simply having appeared on AI does not make an invention notable.  I could change my mind if someone came up with reliable, independent sourcing that is also independent of AI, but as it currently stands, it simply is not notable. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated above, it's simply not notable. BB was rejected, and the winning invention doesn't have an article.  When I see it on Walmart's shelves, then we can recreate it. --User101010


 * Keep If random no-name guys from a no-name band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Davenport) can have an article, Bulletball can have an article.

It even has its own website! http://www.bulletballgames.com/

Why do you feel the need to delete articles? It's not hurting anybody, it's not clogging up the main page or search. -- N3k74r42
 * You do realize that they can't possibly assess every single article at once? There are over a million articles. That article you just linked could rightfully be deleted, it's just that no one has time to find every single non-notable article and put it up for deletion. By the way, it may not clog up the main page or search, but allowing articles on everything non-notable (e.g. Mike Davenport, Bulletball) makes organization impossible, and clogs up the hard drive ($$$). By the way, "non-notable" isn't my silly opinion, notability is coverage in a reliable non-official source... like a news site. If -one- news site talks about Bulletball, it's allowed to have an article. Unfortunately, it's just an invention that's become a fad on LUElinks and 4chan ebaumsworld. --Teggles 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Douglasr007 04:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into a blanket article covering all American Inventor inventions. Although the inventions themselves are not popular nor significantly covered by reliable sources, they are covered in a list-like format, validating a list article. --Teggles 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want a list of more non notable inventions mentioned in a list? The list would fall under WP:NOT. Douglasr007 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists are consistently used to merge non-notable information, forming a notable article. It's not indiscriminate because they are a primary factor of a notable television show. --Teggles 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the proposed list would not fall into WP:NOT's indiscriminate section. Did you even read it? --Teggles 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of lists on here have been deleting deleted for two main reasons: 1. The list falls under WP:NOT and 2. The list fails verifiability (WP:VERIFY). One good example would the List of sampled songs. The list would still be considered indiscriminate information because all of the sources would point to one television show. Douglasr007 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not fail verifiability, the reliable source is American Inventor itself. Other sites have also discusses inventions. They have not significantly covered them though, which is why a list and not individual articles are ideal. Also, this does not fall under indiscriminate information in WP:NOT. I urge you to read the section, because it makes no mention of any of this type of information. --Teggles 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per 101010 Will (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Delayed Decision - It has now gained notoriety within multiple online and offline communities. There is clearly something developing as a result of his appearance on American Inventor.  I propose that we allow that to develop for a short time, two weeks to a month, and revisit the deletion issue.  It is gaining notoriety and is inadvertently gaining traction and steam because of it.  --Mystalic 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article does achieve widespread popularity (which it hasn't; 10,000 hits on Google), it can be recreated. Waiting it out is a bad idea because we don't know what will happen - imagine if we kept every (currently) non-notable article because it "might" develop into something big - it'd be a mess. --Teggles 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge per Mystalic/Teggles &mdash;shoecream 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep it because 100 years from now I'll be smiling down from heaven knowing my game has made it. - Marc Griffin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Frank- (talk • contribs).
 * This argument is invalid, and obviously influenced by his personal POV (the inventor will obviously want the article), therefore does not count. Besides, if it makes it in 100 years, we'll get the article in 100 years (if Wikipedia is still up by then). Slartibartfast1992 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep BULLETBALL BULLETBALL DAT'S A BULLETBALL B3nnic33 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — B3nnic33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Possibly vandalism and if it isn't, it's an invalid argument. Does not count. Slartibartfast1992 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mystalic. 24.247.13.227 02:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to American Inventor or similar, as it might be useful as an example of a rejected proposal from the show. At present, its only virtue is utter failure on a moderately popular American TV show. Per Mystalic, that may change in time. Best, ZZ 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable game Zalgt 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any proof for its notability? Websites and having appeared on a tryout (and failing with four judges against it) definitely does not count. Therefore, invalid argument. Slartibartfast1992 22:40, 18 July 2007 (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.