Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScratchBall Billiards
- 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. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ScratchBall Billiards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Billiards game stated in article have been invented by three brothers while bored at work. The game's website, where it is being sold, confirms this as well. A Google search for the game with and without a space between scratch and ball ([1], [2]), returns a total of 7 hits, all to the website, the Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia mirrors. I just checked my two massive billiards encyclopedia just the be able to say I did and bupkis. I really didn't need to though. "I've never heard of it" is generally a poor deletion argument but nevertheless, I am a billiard expert, am the majority contributor of Wikipedia's substantive billiard-related content, and I've never heard of it. In sum, this is a non-notable, recently invented, unverifiable game that was made up one day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Variation that was made up one day. I'm trusting the nom's expertise here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, not mentioned by its own "references". Huon (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this and the three re-directs as well. Since the only real references/ties here are to the website that's trying to sell this, the article is probably promotional. Qworty (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from the author First, we would like to apologize to all who want to delete this article. We had no idea that it would elicit a negative response. We spent many hours compiling the article to ensure that it was professionally done and fit the wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the accusations: 1. No, it is not promotional. If it were promotional we would have put our website on the page and would not be giving away the information for free. We felt that we were doing a public service. 2. The article is strictly informative material, and not promoting a newly invented object, like a toy or a ginzu knife (which also does not have any references) or personal aggrandizing. The information is useful to anyone with a pool table. 3. Under not notable, wikipedia guide says that if an article currently does not cite a reliable secondary source that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. True, it is a newer game, which explains the lack of secondary sources, but we did thoroughly test it on the local level and found that virtually everyone who plays the game enough to get a feel for it has made it one of their top pocket pool games. By the response from our area, we felt that this was worthy of wikipedia. From the remarks above, that may have been premature thinking. Since deleting the article also denies the public of pertinent useful information, we will leave it up to you to delete or save the article. We do have one request. Play the game several times to get the feel for it before you judge the game. Love it or hate it at least you will know what you are deleting.ScratchBall (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if an article currently does not cite a reliable secondary source, the subject may still be notable. If there are no reliable secondary sources (and you as the game's inventor seem not to know any), it definitely isn't. Also, have a look at WP:COI. Huon (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I happen to love "scratching games." Citations for them go back to at least 1902. There's reverse 8-ball and reverse 9-ball, backwards pool, billiard pool, carom pool, contra pool, cue ball pool, Irish pool, kiss pool, loop (very cute name; that's pool spelled backwards), reverse billiards and, in Britain, the losing game of pyramid. English Billiards, though not strictly a scratching game, also gives points for scratching balls by caroming them off others. In such games the scratch is sometimes called a "losing hazard" or an "in-off". The thing you should understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source by definition, so it can only contain information about things already known to the world in reliable sources. This does not mean the game you and your brothers invented is not great or interesting; just that it can't have an article here because of what this place is—an encyclopedia, with all that that entails.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. There are other sites that are not encyclopedias where your material might fit fine. Some of those other sites are wikis that use the same software we do here so you can use the text you already wrote with no or little change. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I happen to love "scratching games." Citations for them go back to at least 1902. There's reverse 8-ball and reverse 9-ball, backwards pool, billiard pool, carom pool, contra pool, cue ball pool, Irish pool, kiss pool, loop (very cute name; that's pool spelled backwards), reverse billiards and, in Britain, the losing game of pyramid. English Billiards, though not strictly a scratching game, also gives points for scratching balls by caroming them off others. In such games the scratch is sometimes called a "losing hazard" or an "in-off". The thing you should understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source by definition, so it can only contain information about things already known to the world in reliable sources. This does not mean the game you and your brothers invented is not great or interesting; just that it can't have an article here because of what this place is—an encyclopedia, with all that that entails.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 2 June 2008 (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.