Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Ball Machine

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 merge the sourced parts into YTMND. The assertions that it is "evidently notable" are weak, see WP:ATA, and lack of reliable sources is a very good policy-based argument for deletion. Pending a merger by someone who cares about this topic, I'm creating a redirect. Sandstein 09:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ball Machine

This is a fad primarily known for spurring large threads on Something Awful and getting a few million hits on YTMND. However, it has not achieved a sufficient amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant having an article. I previously nominated this back in April. Those wanting to keep the article only cited its apparent fad status on some forums and views/hits. The community has rejected such arguments over and over - I believe the same should be done in this case. --- RockMFR 03:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand After going thourgh google on this subject. I felt that if it was considered notable. Also if it is well known that the site has over a million hits that I would be able to find some notability in that, it just tring to cite what is argued to be reliable. Sawblade05 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge To YTMND After digging through Google most all the hits about it that I found are various versions of it on YTMND and blogs about the fad which may violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Since there is a article about it on Wired, I don't think it sohuld be deleted however it should be merged into YTMND article since it doesn't quite merit its own article. Sawblade05 04:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete nothing giving "significant coverage" to this gif Corpx 05:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evident notability. --xDanielx^Talk 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the very weak sourcing, as evidently notable. DGG (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 1 trivial mention in a Wired article is the only reliable source I could find. The rest are blog mentions. No sources are cited in the aricle and given the lack of reliable source I don't think it's reasonable to expect the article could be sourced. A merge to YTMND is also an option if it was pared down to what can be sourced, but there simply isn't the sourcing to support a standalone article here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isotope, please read WP:DP. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion unless serious attempts have been made to find sources with insufficient success. By contrast, the necessary sources for this article are all over the place, we're just a bit lazy to post them. I read your reasoning again and my comment was rather out of place. I do disagree over the sufficiency of available sources, but your reasoning is fair. My apologies. --xDanielx^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, apparently notable. Mathmo ^Talk 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Fads and memes section of YTMND. No notability outside of YTMND, and no size/length need to split it off that article. --User:Krator (t c) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.