Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cup (game)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cup_%28game%29
Original Research, Hoax?--inks T 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Use your browser's find in page to find cup on this page. --Imagist 03:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh no, LOTR-Cruft! :) Nice find --inks T 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A few other references from Google. Admittedly, those aren't great sources, but there are a lot of them. --Imagist 04:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty with proving the legitimacy of this is that any combination of "cup" with "play" or "game" turns up hundreds of pages on soccer and rugby, which are obviously more popular games. --Imagist 04:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I attest that Cup is in fact a game. In fact, the "few" in the links that Imagist gave was written by me. I made a mention of cup playing in the blog post, and the Cup (game) article seems factual and fairly accurate to me. --Mikexstudios 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mikexstudios, I believe you. Clearly this game exists. But as it stands now, this whole topic fails to meet No Original Research and Verifiability. Without citations to reasonable sources, there is no way I or other editors can ever know whether the descriptions in the article are accurate or not. As it stands, the Wikipedia page on Cup (game) may well be the single most authoritative source on this game in the world. Unintuitively, that is not a good thing - it means someone, probably, has put together some nice, well-meaning original research. Which needs to be published somewhere other than Wikipedia. Bunchofgrapes 18:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment let me make a friendly clarification of what Bunch said. Its fine for wikipedia to be the single most authoritative source, if it is by combining single bits of information from many different sources.  The problem is if the page is the single most authoritative source because it contains information not found anywhere else in the world.  Sorry if this was obvious, I didn't want Mike to get the wrong impression. :) --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't decide if I agree that Wikipedia pages can or should be considered "authoritative" or not, and it probably doesn't matter. The clarification Kzollman makes is correct in spirit. Bunchofgrapes 21:11, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.