Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dodgeball variations (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Dodgeball. Variations with decent referencing in reliable sources only. Those seemingly non-notable should be removed. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of dodgeball variations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Second nomination. Large amalgamation of original research and things made up one day. There are a few cites to a YMCA page - a a single source - insufficient to meet the notability threshold. "The Complete Book About Dodgeball," which is listed as a source, is self-published. To the extent that any dodgeball variations are notable, they can be mentioned in the main dodgeball article. Neutralitytalk 05:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and add more sources for each paragraph. I see multiple different sources, several are to 1, but not all, so 'Single Source' argument is somewhat invalid. The first AFD got it right. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What?
 * "Citation 1" is self-published - AuthorHouse is a vanity press - anybody can have it "published." It's not a valid reference (WP:Selfref)
 * "Citations 2-5" is a YMCA page and a 404 error - the PDF file is no longer offline and even when it was, it was never a reliable source.
 * "Citation 6," this website, has zero content
 * "Citation 7", this page, is a dead link.
 * So there are a total of  zero reliable references  that support notability. It's OK to differ in opinion on an AfD, but I have to say it's really disappointing to see sloppy comments such as the above. --Neutralitytalk 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its really disappointing to see someone more intrested in Deleting because links went dead than fixing the problem (and I assume you didn't try, because it was rather easy to find what I found). I always WP:AGF that when the previous AFD went from Ds into a Keeps, that the links provided then, convinced people. AND after adding several CURRENTLY LIVE links, I am confident I was right in doing so. Just because ymca's internal search engine is Broken does not mean its not possible to find anything they or anyone else has. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't fit in with any of our policies at all. As a matter of fact, it reflects many of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For starters, "it exists" isn't a valid rationale to keep. "Mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." The fact that it shows up on Google doesn't have an impact on notability, either. As to the links you stuck in at the end of the article: One is a brief few paragraphs from the Livestong Foundation, one is from "FunAndGames.org," and one is a random school district in Missouri! None of these support the contention that "dodgeball variations" are notable to the extent that they require their own list. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
 * At the core, you have to look at the definition of notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no editorial vetting in any of these sources, which are also not truly secondary sources. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know the bar for Lists is much lower. Dodgeball IS notable. This list was spunout of the Notable Article to decrease the Parent being a edited and make it look better; just like a discography for a recording artist is often spunout. Variations of the game are notable. If you want to go to the core the we should be looking at "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." WP:LISTN. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of genuine reliable sourcing (see above). Truly notable (and sourcable) variations, should any exist, can be covered in the Dodgeball article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dodgeball and have a brief description of each variation - definetly notable, should not be deleted. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The last AfD was 3 years ago, and the expectation for keeping before was that sources exists and would be added to the article. That is a long period to pass and still the article is only sourced with self-published books and non-independent websites discussing the variations that their organization plays. While I dont doubt these variations are played, it gives WP:UNDUE validation to have an indiscriminate list that as to the popularity or prevalence of these variations.  The general notability guideline is failed based on lack of independent sources in the article or identified in this AfD to date.Norespectasip (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope your not classifying McGraw-Hill Education as a self-published book? And a lot of the websites discuss a variety of variations, not just their 1 version, satisfying WP:LISTN. I have no idea how you bring UNDUE into this, that has to do with how a Article balances opposing viewpoints... is there a "these variations dont exist" point of view? Please explain. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source by Keyes published by AuthorHouse is self-published, as already brought up by the nominator. Using non-independent sources is giving undue weight to their variation.  How popular are these variations.  Using analogy used in WP:UNDUE, is this the same as listing all the supporters that the Earth is flat? Norespectasip (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Popular enough to be used and distributed amongst K12 schools in the US (as the link provided shows has been done). I think your misunderstanding the analogy, this List is more like seperating Spherical Earth, Hollow earth & Flat earth out of the parent, Earth, article. If this List were all still in the parent Dodgeball article, then UNDUE might apply, but definatly not seperated out into their own List. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dodgeball. Changing my !vote from above.  A few non-independent sources have been identified, but still not enough sources in my opinion to support GNG. This its suitable for including in Dodgeball.  Remove all the instructions on how to play each variation and the text is not that big and in line with Wikipedia not being a how-to guide. Norespectasip (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The in-depth how-to instructions should be replaced with a short 1–2 sentence summary of each. Norespectasip (talk) 04:26, 6 September 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.