Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloshball


 * 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.  AK Radecki  19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sloshball

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any good reliable sources about this; many in the article are either college newspapers or sites with user-contributed content. Google News search shows 2 extremely tangential mentions. Veinor (talk to me) 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - i actually started/stubbed this article a few years ago (but no, i don't own it :-) ). today i am kind of embarrassed to say i did, and recently considered AFDing it. an editor sprang up though and took up the article as part of his class and i had renewed hope for it. after these efforts however i still believe it's non-notable - no reliable sources could be found. i would love someone to prove me wrong though, *shrug*. JoeSmack Talk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and lacking sources. Kudos to User:JoeSmack for actually voting delete on an article he created. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As the current Sloshball article editor, I agree that it should be deleted. There were very few dependable sources and scrounging up information on it was not an easy thing. However this is an article being graded on Wednesday May 23, 2007 for just strictly the content, so if we could delete it after then or take this petition to delete down for just a day I would appreciate it and so would my grade. I know this is a rather odd request but to who ever put this up if you could just take it down till one more day, it would really help me out. After that feel free to delete it. Sloshball
 * AFD discussions normally run for at least five days, so even if the determination is to delete, the article should survive at least until the 27th. Deor 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The revisions made since the last version turn this from barely acceptable work to a real contribution. The research is extensive, from a variety of sources and kinds of sources, the organization is clear and logically sequential, the tone is neutral, sober and yet a bit whimsical as appropriate to the subject, and the final advice is tolerant but sensible.

I believe the article will get considerable use and that readers will find it helpful. I give it an A grade.

In earlier versions, I might have agreed with commentators, including one of the authors, that the article should be considered for deletion. At this stage deleting it seems to me unfair and ill-advised. The reasons for deletion offered at the deletion discussion page would apply to any of the articles in the series prominently featured as "Popular Drinking Games." Rudolph2007 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you're right! it would apply to many in the articles on Drinking games! any that do should be tagged for deletion as well. i'm at work right now, anyone have time to throw up some AfD tags? JoeSmack Talk 22:03, 24 May 2007 (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.