Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool)


 * 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. SpinningSpark 19:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Chicago (pool)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  01:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia . So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as-is. Can be better sourced if needed. The playing cultures are different. Rotation was the ancestor of Chicago, and is still played quite actively in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, but Chicago is not. It's a bit like wanting to merge Canadian football into American football just because they're similar and the former a split-off of the latter. (Or merging both forms of rugby, or whatever.)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The keep arguments are rather hopeful would sources. can these be found please or could the keep side expand their comments to ref;ect policy based arguments? Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable gambling game, although there are no references, some could be found. Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   09:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is imaginably improvable and can be kept for such, no outstanding needs for deletion likely. SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RoySmith, for undoing your close after the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2016 February 15. Talk:Chicago (pool) is still deleted, so would an admin undelete it? Cunard (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was an oversight on my part. Fixed.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the discussion below. Discussion with closing admin:

You closed Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote: "The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia . So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)" Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press: "Chicago 1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term 'Rotation' derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU. 2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633." I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half: "CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules" "HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable. "RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online. Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Delete. Is possibly sourceable, and possibly notable, but as of now fails WP:V because it cites zero sources. Verifiability requires that readers can verify the article by sources that are being provided in it. If nobody has bothered to source the article since 2007, or now during this weeks-long AfD, then we have no more reason to keep it around. And per WP:BURDEN sourcing would be the job of those who want to keep the article.  Sandstein   10:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment @ – Note that sources and inline citations were added to the article by another user. North America1000 13:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral. Right, so it now passes WP:V at least. Whether it also passes WP:N I don't know and I am insufficiently interested in the topic to attempt to find out.  Sandstein   14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Tentatively. References to this game are easy to find. Appears definitely verifiable. As an historic game, 50s-70s, internet sources will not abound,so be patient. No hint of promotion or any other motivation to add unencyclopedic content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Rotation (pool). There has never been any question that it is real and verifiable.  http://www.billiardsforum.info/pool-rules/rotation-billiard-rules.asp and http://billiards.about.com/od/gamerulesstrategy/a/02_12rotation.htm are sufficient for verification.  Without sourced commentary, there is no case for a standalone article, and the information would be better maintained and in context at the target.  It being a decades past popular variation barely played anymore, it is to be no surprise that there is a lack of enthusiastic editors wanting to adopt this subject, but that is not a good reason to reactively do away with it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually no, those links only verify that rotation billiards is sometimes called Chicago, not that there is an independent variant called Chicago.  Hut 8.5  18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Sandstein. If it's so easily sourceable, then go ahead and do it!  Otherwise this does not meet WP:V and no amount of handwaving will fix that.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment @ – Note that sources and inline citations were added to the article by another user. North America1000 13:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Our deletion policies don't allow for deletion based on the lack of sources in the article.  Sources exist is enough.  Beyond that point, WP:V is now met in the article so the point is moot.  Hobit (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources scraped together are just enough to convince me that the subject exists, but there is nothing to verify that this is a notable variant of Pool (cue sports). In passing, I note that the same could be said of Bowlliards. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I feel that that WP:5P1 means the fact that a number of specialized encyclopedias do cover this variant means that we should too. I take that first pillar to mean that we are trying to be a superset of most specialized encyclopedias, so I tend to treat such coverage (especially in older "encyclopedias") as very important when considering inclusion.  Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage in subject encyclopedias is sufficient. Had they just mentioned it in a single sentence it would have been another matter.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rotation (pool). The article does (finally) have some sources, but they don't really go beyond a bare description of the rules. The article doesn't either, and apart from a sentence or two is describing a variant which isn't the one described by the sources linked here. I don't think the available sources are going to provide sufficient coverage to enable this article to grow significantly beyond a bare description of the rules. I suggest we assemble a paragraph which can actually be sourced and add it to the target, which already describes a number of other variants.  Hut 8.5  19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm not sure I am), this is a pretty huge variant. Both in terms of popularity (at one point) and rules.  I'm honestly  not opposed to a merge, but I'm not sure we can do this justice without a figure and a fair bit of text. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much evidence of that beyond an unsourced assertion that it was popular in New York City in the 60s and 70s. If someone can present sources which cover it beyond telling you how to play it then I'm happy to reconsider, but without that I'm inclined to treat it the same way I would an article on a word with just a dictionary definition or an article on a film with just a plot summary.  Hut 8.5  20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article now has a few more sources in it, but they all just amount to stating the rules. The only exception, which I did see before posting the above comment, verifies that a pool hall is/was named after it - "He christened the place Chicago Billiards, not after the city but after the game Chicago, a permutation of rotation pool". That seems to be all the source says about it.  Hut 8.5  18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Sandstein and WJBScribe. The "keep" arguments seem to boil down to I've heard of it and think it's probably notable and that legitimate sources might be available, which is simply not enough. The initial closer was right to discount such "arguments." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable, having an encyclopedia as one of its reliable sources, unsourced material can be removed, I think it passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atlantic306 and DGG, also I just added a bit of history and color, with a cite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per SwisterTwister : Could/might be improved and I don't see a reason to push for deletion. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the entries in subject encyclopedias are enough to warrant inclusion.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG, albeit on a weak level based upon sources that are available online. However, the game dates to at least 1910, and it's likely that additional offline sources are available. North America1000 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I understand that this is a grey area as there are not, as far as I can see, 2 non-trivial pieces of coverage in secondary sources but the current citations do have 2 semi-trivial pieces of coverage in secondary sources (Phalen and Wertheim) combined with 3 very clear references in tertiary sources, more if you consider the Google references (which I don't personally). Since this is obviously right on the line I have no prejudice against those suggesting deletion, but it appears to (barely) justify it's wiki-existence. -Markeer 18:04, 17 February 2016 (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.