Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roofball


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Roofball
This page appears to fail WP:NFT and details a non-notable game even if it passes NFT. This article was proposed for deletion two months ago, but the template was removed. Since then, changes have been minimal. Erechtheus 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NFT definitely. Football started this way and in 20 years it had professional teams. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I remind you of WP:NFT. This sport has been documented in three sources, which are cited in the article.  The question is whether those sources have been fact checked and undergone peer review and this sport has actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 09:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT,WP:OR. Although it has citations for 3 sources they attest only to the use of the word roofball to describe games played using a roof and a ball, not the rules and history listed in the article (which are copied from the Vernal Equinox of 2006 version - the original editor's own work). Aside from that original research, the three sources disagree about the origins and history of the game implying that they are in no way connected other than by name and the two pieces of 'equipment' used. Yomangani 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A very good argument. Thank you for making a case at AFD the way that cases should be made.  Uncle G 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT made up on a roof. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete as this seems to satisfy WP:NFT. As it has been pointed out, there are referenced sources (though the entire article is poorly formated). There is little binding the different varieties, but one cannot dispute that track is a valid collection of games albeit diverse. User: Kapsilico
 * The above comment was added by 128.170.131.142 who may or may not be User: Kapsilico. Yomangani 19:11, 31 July 2006 (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.