- 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 (Note: One of the keep !votes was cast by a sockpuppet of an indef banned editor, and was disregarded.) — Caknuck 05:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bulletball / Inclusion Sports has become a Senior Olympic Sport and is utilized as therapy by military hospitals. It has somehow grown since the American Inventor TV appearance into a sport known throughout the country and in other parts of the world. Review their face book bulletball game site as well as inclusionsports to get caught up on their advances since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.77.203 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
The discussion was previously closed by the nominator, therefore there is a serious conflict of interest per WP:DPR#NAC. Relisting in a fresh AfD to generate more consensus. --DarkFalls talk 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think it's really proper to re-open a closed, two month old AFD, even if the closing of that AFD is questionable. At this point, I think a whole new AFD is required. - TexasAndroid 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete-No reliable references Aatomic1 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable enough Czac 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not really sure if I should give my opinion since I nominated it two months ago, but here it is just in case. There are no reliable references to prove BB's notability. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know whether this discussion should have been reopened in this way, but I think getting new opinions in another discussion (as is happening now) is a good idea since my way of closing the original discussion may have been, after all, somewhat incorrect. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep BulletBall has become sort of phenomenon, and at this point most people who talk about it have never even seen American Inventor and came to learn about it through links on websites, news articles, blog postings, and word of mouth. I know I heard about BulletBall before I had ever even heard of American Inventor. It may be more notable for its failure than its success, but it is still notable. --Keithn 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please provide some links to some of these "news articles"? If someone would just do that, it's notability could be established once and for all. Until someone can provide references for the notability, then I'm sorry, but it's just talk. Wikipedia requires references. And except for the minor appearance on American Inventor, noone has been able to provide a single valid source for this game's notability, despite lots of talk like this. - TexasAndroid 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think it's a misuse of the relisting process to ask for a "more thorough discussion" when lots of people already debated this. You know, I can understand when only 2 or 3 people ventured a comment, but you folks can't do this every time an AfD "doesn't go your way". Maybe it was kept, maybe it was deleted. Who cares? Don't try to sell us on some nonsense that the discussion wasn't "through enough" if you didn't like the outcome. Mandsford 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith here. The relist was performed by a previously uninvolved admin. A couple of us have already expressed on his talk page that we think that reopening this was not the right course of action, but there is absolutely no reason to think that this had anything to do with it not going "his way", when he was not previously involved with the situation. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply This is the second time I've seen this, and the first time was not long after we started seeing articles relisted for a more thorough discussion; and while I agree that something should be relisted if there was little debate the first time (3 comments), it's like asking for a "more thorough election" after a everyone has voted. Bonus points to the first person who points out "AfD isn't a vote". Yes, I know, we don't keep a tally, but I vote keep or I vote delete... and if I don't do either, I'm merely making a comment. Mandsford 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge to American Inventor As I stated last time, it's simply not notable. BB was rejected, and the winning inventions don't have articles. When we see it on Walmart's shelves, then we can recreate it. For now, it's a game that only exists in the heart of its inventor. The existence of a website for the game or YouTube popularity or Google hit counts does not make it notable, either. --User101010 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Until/unless someone can provide reliable, independent, non-trivial references that this has notability beyond it's small appearance on AI, I cannot consider it notable enough for this project. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 15 September 2007 (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.