Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moundball

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Moundball}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Moundball}})

Unsourced and orphan for 16 years. Couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV denoting notability. Previous contested PROD. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is original research lacking any sources whatsoever, let alone WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, there are zero sources that cover, describe, or mention a betting game called “moundball”. Fails WP:V.

:(I found [https://www.mlb.com/cut4/here-are-10-things-you-may-not-know-about-moundball/c-91530702 this source] talking about a game called “moundball”, made several years after this article was created, but it just mentions it as a “Twitter game” rather than a betting game with rules. It seems to be just random people celebrating when a ball gets in a mound, rather than an actual betting game. And that doesn’t seem notable enough for an article.)

:Pretty much all the info in this article is unsourced original research

:Edit: Keep per Cielquiparle. Did not see those sources, sorry. (Though some of the article is still unsourced, and likely contains some original research) ApexParagon (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Started adding sources starting with newspaper articles but there is more to follow. It is definitely a thing, a spectator sport in American baseball. (But yes, the article is way too long and will require a bunch of cleanup.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have added five sources to the article now and revised the lead paragraph. There is still more work to be done and I'm quite certain there are more sources in books and magazines. But some of the best examples to date include two pages explaining Moundball in [https://archive.org/details/jockularitylower0000kirk/page/118/mode/2up?q=moundball this 1998 book by a sports cartoonist]; a paragraph in the 2001 book [https://archive.org/details/fieldsofdreamsgu00ahuj/page/106/mode/2up?q=moundball Fields of Dreams: A Guide to Visiting and Enjoying All 30 Major League Ballparks]; this 1997 article in The Galveston Daily News, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-galveston-daily-news-the-art-of-moun/171628794/ "The art of moundball is no place for silly games and politics"]. Sometimes, depending on the topic, you really can't rely on a quick Google search to determine whether or not a topic is notable. Request reconsideration by nominator and other editors in this discussion, but especially {{u|Cbl62}}. Cheers. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Did not catch those book sources, sorry about that.

::The article likely still contains original research (over 80% of it is still unsourced), but 5 sources is enough for me to change my vote to Keep. ApexParagon (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @ApexParagon. Agree. I would normally just go ahead and remove the unsourced sections but I'm finding a lot of the points turn out to be verifiable, so just want to take a bit of extra time to go through the text and understand it. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.