Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholf (2nd nomination)

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 No Consensus to delete, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether this is notable or not. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sholf

I voted to keep in the last debate. I'm reopening the discussion and changing my vote to delete because the article is not verifiable. It has sourcing problems that can't be solved as I expected. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – without prejudice. It seems to be gaining notability as a lawn game. However, do not believe it is quite there yet for inclusion here. There really are no significant third party – reliable – verifiable sources available. In fact, I could only find one and that is already referenced in the article. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That there's only one verifiable source is a clue to whether this is actually notable. It survived deletion last time on grounds that it could be improved. It's a combination of "SHuffleboard" and "gOLF" (hence, "sholf") with what looks like a 15 foot long mat that probably retails for $29.95 plus shuffling and handling. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have a lot of blog/youtube/etc articles but only one RS. Seems notable and verifiable, but not the best. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Similar scenario to the swingball afd, its growing in notability, but not there yet.--Finalnight (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep But ignore my opinion, for I'm the game's inventor :-). Do what's right, folks. I'll try again in the future if you decide to delete it. Phauber (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is receiving media coverage and has a reliable source. Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Recreate if it survives long enough to be truly notable, and not just a local fill-in for slow news days.Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow news days or not, if there are RS and it meets WP:N, it can and should be here. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:NOTE the news broadcast about the game comes from a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That in itself makes it worthy of an article Atlandy (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - just about sufficient media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 26 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.