Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinessonli


 * 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. Tone 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tinessonli

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. The article gives no sources at all. Google search produces (apart from Wikipedia) three facebook pages and that is all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply The date was wrong. It is a legit sport and was made in January. It should not be deleted, but the date needs to be changed. Nothing comes up on Google search because it has only been around for two months and is a local game. Obviously, with no official league or website, nothing will come up on Google search. I live in Dayton and I have seen many people playing it and even tournaments. It is a real sport and apparently has a patent pending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryallen313 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ditto, plus the sport was invented in December of 2010? (GregJackP (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - based on the above, how is it notable? GregJackP (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - You really just shot yourself in the foot with a lot of what you just said. If it's only a local game, only been around for two months, and nothing comes up on Google search, all of which you just admitted, how is this possibly notable? ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - As the above just said, a patent is pending. Isn't that be notable enough for you?  Once it gets a patent, will that be notable enough for you?  Will it kill anyone to have this page on Wikipedia?  No.  Who cares if it doesn't pop up on Google?  Type your name into Google.  If you don't pop up, does that make you any less of something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostChik7 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)  —The preceding comment signed as by LostChik7 (talk • contribs) was actually added by 70.153.144.232 (talk • contribs) - 70.153.144.232 has made no other edits. LostChik7 has made no edits at all. In the above edit the "Contributions" link is in fact a link to Special:Contributions/Barryallen313. Barryallen313, the creator of the article, has commented above. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm sorry, but a patent does not make this notable, and, while a google search on my name in real life does produce quite a large number of hits, I am not notable in the way wikipedia defines the term. The issue isn't, I think, that the game is or is not important, fun, valuable, or holds great promise for the future, but rather that it fails to meet the guidelines for notability. My suggestion would be that you request this be moved to your userspace until such time as it can meet notability requirements. It does sound like an interesting game, and I wish you luck in popularizing it, but wikipedia isn't the place for promoting it. Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I wonder if the anonymous editor above knows what a patent pending means. Anyone can apply for a patent: the fact that an application is pending does not make anything notable. In fact a lot of patents which are granted (let alone pending) are for things which are never heard of again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sources, no notability. Blatantly violates WP:MADEUP. Author of page admitted above that the subject has no notability ("nothing will come up on Google search", "it has only been around two months", etc). ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - It fails Wp:NFT and, as stated above (bizarrely, by the creator in some odd attempt to save it), Wp:N. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article creator argues quite effectively for the non-notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2010 (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.