Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handminton

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

=[[Handminton]]=

:{{la|Handminton}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Handminton}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Handminton}})

Not a notable sport. A search for handminton on Google reveals an Urban Dictionary definition, Facebook groups and YouTube videos, but no reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • An investigation of relevant YouTube, facebook, and urbandictionary posts clearly reveal that the sport discussed in the Wiki page for Handminton is entirely distinct and new. Being a new sport, which coincidentally shares a name, it is notable purely from the fact that it exists. Deleting this article would be akin to deleting an article discussing a new scientific phenomenon that has never been theorized before. I believe we should keep this article--Goeagles520 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, we would delete a 'new scientific phenomenon' 'never theorised before' - if there were no reliable references for it. Scientific phenomena, however, do attract more attention than made-up 'new sport[s]'. "it is notable purely from the fact that it exists" - rubbish. My compost bin exists. Very definitely it exists. (I just fed it...) Does it deserve an article? Possibly less than does handminton, because until now no-one at all outside my household had heard of my compost bin. (Will it go viral, I wonder?) Less, but not by much. You say that the YouTube, facebook, and urbandictionary posts are about something totally different. That means there's even less evidence than the nominator thought. (Not that those are reliable sources anyway, as is pointed out.) Peridon (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unreferenced nonsense. WP:NFT. Nakon 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - as a made up game with no reliable sources (or unreliable sources for that matter). -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (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.