Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tipperball


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mind matrix  00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tipperball
It almost sounds plausible until you realize it's a game of throwing wadded-up paper balls at each other's crotches. 10 hits on google, 2 unique. Nominator votes delete. bikeable (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gah, this "nominator votes" thing is like a plague. It gets worse every day! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So what? Nominator is entitled a vote. Reyk 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. AfD is not a vote, but the nominator has as much right as anyone to say delete. Happy now? Reyk 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are we so concerned about the nominator's "vote" being heard? If he does his job properly, he'll have written a good argument for deletion, which is worth countless votes.  Nominators voting encourages sloppy nominations &mdash; since their vote is safe, there's no need to actually make the case for deletion.  Now, while User:bikeable didn't fall into that trap, he's a rare specimen indeed; not voting as the nominator is a good habit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be awesome if it were clear what one word designation should be used instead of vote. It's not a vote but what (succinctly) is it? "my sharing of opinion in an attempt to build consensus" just doesn't flow off the tongue (off the fingers?) as well as "my vote", does it? ++Lar 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Argument, perhaps? Or better yet, don't worry about what it's called &mdash; your opinion on AfD is only important insofar as you make an argument or support someone else's.  Concentrating on the letters in bold leads to the presumption that admins will be doing nothing but vote-counting, which would be a very Bad Thing indeed. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Pboyd04 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Speedy delete. Their "NTBA Homepage" actually brings you to a nonexistent Yahoo Geocities site; unverifiable. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unverifiability is not a speedy deletion criterion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn -- MisterHand 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn. --Daveb 11:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC).
 * Delete. Attempt to make an old school game (just a variant on throwing spitballs, really) into some sort of full-blown sport using Wikipedia as a source for the currently-unverifiable hoax.  That's a Bad Thing.  fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Reyk 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless can be sourced Lotusduck 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, non notable, hurts. -- ReyBrujo 02:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ... made me snicker (the NTBA external page (thoughtfully corrected for us by user:thehowler who has repeatedly been adding apparent nonsense to the Lockport, Illinois page (in homage to Mandy's birthday, although perhaps Lockport residents may not agree with my characterization of it as nonsense, but I digress...) for us to clean up) has this gem in the standings section: "The NTBA does not really exist and these standings are based on a fake season i created randomly") but snickerage != notability. Ice this nascent sport before the creators feel the need to generate a second fake season. ++Lar 05:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. - Liontamer 09:11, 3 January 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.