Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Encyclopædia of Ball Juggling

: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. SpinningSpark 00:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

=[[The Encyclopædia of Ball Juggling]]=

:{{la|The Encyclopædia of Ball Juggling}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_of_Ball_Juggling Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|The Encyclopædia of Ball Juggling}})

Not enough secondary sourcing, no claim of notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • delete primary sources only provided. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 18:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • delete Does not meet notability requirements for books... --Lfrankblam 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - gave searching for sources a good try, but not finding even one reliable, independent one that goes beyond a brief mention. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The page creator, {{u|Icosahedron}}, looks to have spent a good amount of effort on this (it was even a DYK back in 2007). Given also that it seems to get a lot of mentions from unreliable juggling-related community sites, it may be a good candidate for userfication. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:GNG, WP:UFY - Lack of reliable secondary sources. Content is not objectionable, and could be moved to the user namespace in theory, as suggested by Rhododendrites, however the article would serve no future purpose and for that reason could not be kept in the user namespace indefinitely. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2014 (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.