Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toilet Bowl (game)

Requesting re-opening of this AfD
There are several reason for re-opening this AfD:
 * 1) No notification was given to interested parties that the AfD was in progress.  Of course, it isn't required, but it is recommended so we ... well.. don't have to do this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The reasons "just get rid of it", "wipe and flush", and "per WP:POOP" are not valid reasons for deleting an article and actually tend to show a bent toward WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Also, WP:POOP is a dead link.
 * 3) The reason WP:NEO does not apply because the term has been widely used at least since 1987 and likely much longer before, appearing in pop culture, sports broadcasting, etc.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that this AfD be re-opened and a full discussion take place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, can you provide some "reliable sources specifically about the term" ? I nominated it for deletion because the only ref in the article mentioned the toilet bowl only in passing and I was unable to find any sources that provided significant coverage. Corpx (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources please consider the following:
 * 1) 27 sources found in Google News, including news outlets such as ESPN, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, South Florida Sun, Chicago Daily Herald, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Augusta Chronicle, and the Kansas City Star -- as far back as 1960.
 * 2) 2 books found in Google Books (7 found in list, at least 2 specifically discuss the topic in the article)
 * 3) 1 solid match in Google Scholar
 * 4) over 490,000 weblinks on the topic.

These are all links posted by the original nomination. Now, please explain how "just get rid of it", "wipe and flush", and "per WP:POOP" would be valid deletion reasons. --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please just link directly to the sources that give "significant coverage" to the term, as opposed to just mentioning it in passing Corpx (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's laziness like that which led to this inappropriate deletion, you posted the links and didn't even look! sigh okay, but not right now because I have real world work to do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)