Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotshot (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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hotshot (game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable game that someone made up one day. The only references are from a free web hosting service (in other words, they're something that the article creator probably wrote and posted himself). This was almost borderline speedy, but it's better to bring it here instead. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree it appears to be made up and non-notable, no RS Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, not notable. Acebulf (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not a game he made up. We play it in gym all the time. Having said that, I agree it doesn't deserve its own page and should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.9 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't matter who wrote the home page or who wrote the article. No reliable secondary source = article gets deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G7 per the IP, whom I'm presuming is the page's author just logged out (pretty evident given that they just nominated the article at DYK). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This is actually a pretty old game with a lot of history. I know they won't turn up on Google, but Lexis has returned several hits, including one from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 17, 1982, ("The object is to score as many points as possible in a minute, with shots taken from five designated Hotspots worth between 2 and 5 five points. Each player starts at midcourt and retrieves his own rebounds . . . ) the Washington Post, dated September 24, 1981, about a local Hotshot competition tied in with a national one sponsored by the NBA. I'm still looking for more, but it's hard to cull them from all the stories that just call any player a "hotshot." I would guess that if someone could get their hands on a magazine for phys-ed teachers, they could find some more back everything up. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have titles and other citation info for these LexisNexis hits? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Brother-sister basketball 'Hotshots'; New Jersey claims hockey team"; June 17, 1982, Thursday, Midwestern Edition; BYLINE: By Ross Atkin, Sports writer of The Christian Science Monitor; SECTION: Sports; Sports Notebook; Pg. 8; LENGTH: 453 words and "Hotshot Basketball Finals Saturday"; The Washington Post; September 24, 1981, Thursday, Final Edition; SECTION: The District Weekly; DC 6; LENGTH: 103 words


 * It's hard to prove to you that these articles exist, as I can't copy/paste them without running afould of copyright restrictions, but here are the links to their pages from ProQuest Archiver: CSM, and WP . LAT Courant — Bdb484 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't deny they exist, if it's any consolation, we have to be able to verify it though, and print-only data is difficult at best. What we need is something we can still verify this - online resources are a big help.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In Bdb's defense, the articles are not print-only if you have access to LexisNexis. I have read them and, while initially skeptical, I have to admit they do seem to say what Bdb says they say. I'm not totally convinced as to whether or not they establish notability, though, so will need to think on it for a day or so. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Articles presented above have the word hotshot in them, but I can't verify these sources.  Need something more verifiable and very reliable at that. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have verified that they are almost certainly about the game. At first it seemed possible that they were simply about a regular basketball tournament that was simply called the "hotshots basketball tournament", but that does not seem to be the case; they really are about this game. i need to think, though, about whether or not they're a big enough deal to establish notability. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (@Dennis the Tiger) I too can vouch that WP:V is met here. There may be other grounds for deletion, but not that one. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update After some thinking, I have decided not to withdraw the nom or change my rationale, my !vote is still delete. While the articles Bdb found on LexisNexis are nice, I believe they are more about that one tournament than about Hotshots´ notability as a game in general. While they might help give us a little more verification for the rules of the game, I don´t think they offer any real opportunity for article expansion or strong proof of notability. --r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but it seems like you're making a differentiation where there really doesn't need to be one. Using the reasoning you're putting forward, it seems like you'd have to oppose deletion of Pepsi Hotshot Tournament and Coca Cola-Hartford Hellcats Hotshot Tournament, while hotshot itself would be a redlink inside those articles. There's no reason the article can't demonstrate the notability of both the game and the tournament. And again, if there have been national tournaments for this game going on for the last two decades, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't more out there that could be used to flesh out this article, if it's given time.
 * If we judge articles by what they are able to be, rather than what they look like five days after creation, I don't see how I can argue this should not be given the opportunity to be developed. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not something just made up one day.  I played this in elementary school in the 80's, and markings for it were painted on the pavement.  I'm sure reliable sources exist somewhere, because the current sources aren't valid for our purposes.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per research by Bdb484. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I too can view the sources, and while I do take Rjanag's point, I think that User:Bdb484 rebuttal is persuasive. The sources, perhaps tangentially, speak to the notability of the game as well as the tournament. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:40, 27 May 2009 (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.