Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniten


 * 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. Clearly no consensus for deletion, but it is up to editors to debate whether it should be merged, although consensus for the most part is to keep with good points from that camp. JForget 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Miniten

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

Very little content. Less than 4,000 relevant google hits. Very weak assertion of notability - dedicated naturists are already a rather small population, and I don't know how popular or known this game is among them. If someone can come up with substantial evidence of notability, I'll bite, but I am skeptical... Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing it would only make the game less well know. I have not had time to add to my the page of the AMA, but would given time create a more meaningful listing here.  Unfortunately we are not all blessed with having loads of time on our hands to keep these things up to date.


 * There are far more sports on wikipedia and otehr topics which are less supported. This is the only game that is only played by naturists so is a large party of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.202.226.62 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [I reformatted the responses above]. I appreciate the concerns there, but wikipedia does have basic standards and it is incumbent upon interested editors to maintain those standards.  It is explicitly not permitted, for example, to create a place holder page that does not assert notability or offer any sources, and then just assume that eventually it might get improved.  Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge - into Naturism Culture or suchlike.--EchetusXe 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep 37 google news hits legit sport. Ikip (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, only ten of these 37 hits are about the sport, the others are (mainly) typos for minuten (minutes). Oh, and "keep" comments like the one you made here will make it necessary for A Nobody to vote against you if you would ever try to become an administrator, since it is one of the arguments to avoid... I suppose he would badger you about it in thesame way that he does with people giving a "delete" opinion he doesn't like... Fram (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I never heard of miniten before today, but the number of references online to this sport are many; I added a cite to an article in The Guardian which confirms some of the facts in the article.  I also added a link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that has a clever miniten picture.  While closely linked to naturism, that article is already too long and it doesn't make sense to me to merge this into it.--Milowent (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Kudos to Milowent who has well demonstrated the merit of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether the sport exists of not is not the issue. Notability is and I don't see notability. It is 70 years old and only about a dozen gnews hits are all we can come up with? It's not like it is new and nobody has had time to cover it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits is an argument to avoid because it's so easy to get it wrong. The internet has not existed for 70 years, most news archives don't go back very far and so such searches have a bias.  And then editors often don't search on a sufficient range of keywords.  If you search for "mini-tennis", you'll find thousands of hits about cut-down forms of tennis.  This indicates that we should expand our article to cover all of these, not just the naturist form.  A move to the title Mini-tennis would be a good start and deletion would neither be helpful nor necessary. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't use it as an argument. I am referring to the lack of significant coverage. If this sport were notable, we'd see more significant coverage. The internet may not have existed for 70 years, but this sport has existed the whole time the internet has been around, so I think your bias argument is empty, unless you are somehow asserting that this sport was once popular and notable and just fell into obscurity. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using naive Google hits to measure the coverage and this is not good enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm using the lack of significant coverage as my reasoning. Please try actually reading what I say and not what you think I mean. Or better yet, just stop telling me why I'm wrong because, unless more significant coverage from more reliable sources gets added, my !vote won't be changing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent five more minutes & added more refs to the article. I can see there are older articles (british papers) out there that also reference this.  Perhaps if Niteshift36 or any other editor has access to pay archives that other editors may not, they can find more of these references.  But i think notability is easily passed here.  Also, there appear to be a slew of other games on wikipedia that are far far less notable in terms of coverage than miniten, yet have articles. E.g., Feudal (game), Feather_Bowling, etc. etc. etc.  If my criteria was "WTF is this crap!? i never heard of it!" i'd be AFD'ing all day.--Milowent (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - As I've now researched this subject as commented on above, I find no serious question that miniten is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Miniten gets referenced very often in passing in British papers as a well-known sport for naturists, so much so that its not novel enough to generate "human interest" type stories anymore in Britian.  It dates from the 1930s.  It has officially published rules (in hard cover at least from the 1960s), and enough accessible sources which I've cited already that demonstrate notability.  I invite any editors with access to hard copy archives of British papers from the 1930s - 1980s, or non-free online archives, to dig up more references to further improve the article.  --Milowent (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge Notable enough to be owrth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a classic example of a type of article that belongs in Wikipedia. No one hears the term "tennis" and looks it up in an encyclopedia because you don't quite know what it means. You might however, hear or read the term "miniten", and not know what it means. Some would expect to find some coverage of it in Wikipedia, and I think some would be right. It isn't a neologism, so this isn't part of plan to spam a term Although I confess that the early comment ("Removing it would only make the game less well know(sic)") weighs AGAINST including it, but I think the weight of the evidence in in favor of keeping it.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the coverage is pretty incidental and I doubt whether it strictly meets WP:N. However, the game definitely exists and the article meets policy ie WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since it might well be of interest to enquiring readers, I think that it would be policy wonking to delete it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:47, 7 September 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.