Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuffleball

I don't think this sport is notable. It seems very much tied to various micronations and most of the Google hits originate from Wikipedia. I'll reconsider my vote if enough people know of it. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert for website, well done and perhaps well intended but not what we want. From the official website :Organization is the key to this, and right now, this is essentially a one-man operation. I have some close friends who help me out with various objectives, and several good people who have helped test the sport out. If you would like to help with the organizing of this sport, drop me a line here. I would love to hear from you and would really love additional input into developing the sport. So it's not yet encyclopedic, and may never be. Andrewa 21:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fully agree with Andrewa for a change. Skyler 22:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a Comment. The sport is real, it's not fictional. It has been played, and it has a set of cohesive rules. It does exist. I thought Wikipedia was an information source. I had no idea that just because someone has not heard of something that it deserves to be deleted. Delete it if it doesn't pass this litmus test, but 'not notable' is quite arbitrary. scuffleball 22:24, Aug 11, 2004
 * Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia! See your talk page if you haven't already. Andrewa 13:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Whether it exists or not, it is not yet notable. Indeed, we are confined to notable information, in context.  The reason for this is simply to set some limit.  Were we to not have that limitation, then we would be including every product of every imagination anywhere at any time.  All terms, such as "notable," "significant," and "important" are going to be open to some argument, and that's why the deletion process is by vote.  Geogre 00:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * While I have no desire to bash Everything2, having contributed to their pages myself, I will say that the primary difference between E2 and Wikipedia is that E2 is prepared to accept any article on any topic. E2 is a much more suitable repository for neologisms, neopolitics, neoeconomics, and neosports such as scuffleball. What I most appreciate about Wikipedia is its insistence on some kind of history for its topics. Even though that may be, in some cases, only four or five years, at least there is some legacy to demonstrate perpetuity. Denni &#9775;  02:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)