Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sott


 * 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.  Singu larity  05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sott

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

Apparently it's a new sport but it does not appear to be notable just yet. Appears to be no coverage other than the one source used as a reference. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which this pretty clearly is.  Also lacks enough coverage to pass WP:N.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the single source verifies the origin of the game but is insufficient to establish notability. Further references to underwrite that this game has been adopted more widely are required. BlueValour (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Lifebaka. -- On the  other side  Contribs 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source comes from the place where Sott was created. If I found a PDF file online from a college newspaper that talks about a child prodigy, does said prodigy deserve an article? No. The nutshell of WP:N states that a notable article needs sources that are both independant and secondary, neither of which the Dixie Sun exhibit in relation to Sott. Mouse is back 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Underneath here, I have pasted Matau's argument against the deletion of Sott from Talk:Sott. For reference, is the creator of the Sott article. Mouse is back 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a real new sport, and there is absolutely no reason that this page should be deleted. the link provided in the article is legitimate, and I have a copy of this very same article in newspaper print.  This could be the next Pickleball! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matau (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Maybe in the future, but the notability just isn't there yet.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nonsense; should have been speedied. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one article in a local paper--not notable at this point. JJL (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mouse. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT, was clearly made up one day at school and isn't the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and break out the snow shovel, as this seems to be a pretty clear cut case of an article about something made up one day. B figura  (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Stupid kids engaging in stupid behavior, the epitome of WP:NFT. JuJube (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Can always be remade once notable. And it doesn't make any sense. Mm40 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (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.