Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darn Cold Croquet


 * 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Darn Cold Croquet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable sport played at one winter festival in one small town, with one single solitary article from the local newspaper for "referencing". Was originally speedied, but creator disputed that on the grounds that other people might be interested. I still don't see how that makes it anything other than a delete, however. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability. If the game blows up and gets widespread coverage in reliable sources - then, sure, we can have an article. But not until then. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Should probably be deleted for lack of nobility. (I am the author)  I would agree that it does not fall under any of the categories of nobility.  My original argument was that the article is notable to a select group of people; however, it may not be notable to the entire wikipedia community.  I was upset that it was deleted earlier because a speedy deletion tag was not put on the article, so it was immediately deleted without warning.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the speedy deletion tag isn't a core requirement of an article getting speedy deleted for lack of sourced notability; it's only a tool that's used if the person who first notices the article doesn't have deletion privileges themselves. An administrator has those privileges, however, and therefore doesn't have to tag an article before speedying it — the only thing we have to do is to be prepared to undelete and take it to AFD if someone challenges us on it afterward. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Should certainly be deleted due to WP:ONEDAY (This is the author) The more I have researched this, the more I have understood that it does not belong on wikipedia.Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (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.