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. Roofio clearly exists. However, there is no indication of notability. Sources are all self-publsihed by the school, no indication of 3rd party coverage. And the killer sentence: Roofio is a truly King's School Sport currently played (at King's) by only the Upper Sixth Form GedUK  15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roofio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable school game Passportguy (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hey, Thanks for your comments. I understand how you may view Roofio as un-important, however as a school sport, and one which we hope will - one day - be widely played throughout, perhaps, the world, we feel that Roofio is deservant of a place on Wikipedia. The school website is to be updated this week to include a Roofio section. Thanks for your time, Roofio. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.120 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 217.44.135.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete notability --  Rmzadeh  ►  18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Tetherball is an article we have. Why? and, subsequently, why not this roofio (wasn't a character in "peter pan" named roofio?) Anyhow, how have we justified tetherball? just because it is played in the US and we all know it? How exactly did we or do we measure how many kids have played tetherball or play it currently? Just a thought. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks for the comment "Turqoise". To follow on from your comment, maybe it's time small time sports were given a chance to rise to the top. If Wikipedia were to deem every new sport as "non-notable", what chance in hell do any sports like Roofio have of ever becoming popular?

Give Roofio a chance, heck, maybe even play it. But deleting it from the Wikipedia system will be no way to help unknown and amateur sports become the greater successes they deserve.

Let's put Roofio on the internet map, starting with Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) — 86.149.81.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please sign your comments. The game is not comparable to Tetherball as it is far less notable due to lack of reliable sources, notice that the only sources provided are from blogs or facebook groups. the championship might have 100 people according to reference by facebook?!... this is hardly a reliable source or notable subject. wikipedia is not grounds for advertisement of new sports but an encyclopedia of notable articles. this sport is not notable yet--  Rmzadeh  ►  18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable if only played by a group of students at one school. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new game. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not about promoting the sport at all. It is a brainchild of a sport currently, and for anybody to learn about the sport, given it's rising crop as one over the last month, Wikipedia, like so many other topics, is the first port of call for the public to learn about something, especially if its got a buzz about it like Roofio has!

So to delete the article would be deleting the chance for anybody wishing to play the game the opportunity to learn how it works/the protocols etc. It is a sad, sad day that members of the Wikipedia community are willing to put down an idea that is merely being fully described here. Wikipedia is meant to be the peoples encylopedia, and a platform for groundbreaking content to be contributed to. The people have a right to learn about sports and ideas through the medium of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surely it can be classed as 'notable' if it has become part of a school's history, why should certain parts of a school's heritage be denied, even if it is a new edition to it's heritage. It has become very 'notable'. "wikipedia is not grounds for advertisement of new sports but an encyclopedia of notable articles" - What kind of encylopedia should not try to archive new sports, from the well played to the emerging. -- King's School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.124.6 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 212.32.124.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Another user that thinks that wikipedia is for making stuff notable, rather than documenting stuff that's already notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not have as a purpose the publicizing of things made up in school one day. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This game has quickly become a major part of the 6th form society to one of the oldest running schools in England, The King's School, Grantham. How some people can deny the progress of this school and say just because they haven't heard of 'Roofio' that it doesn't deserve a place on this online encyclopedia! I have come across many more ridiculous articles that have earned there place on wikipedia just because they are well known. But how the world can deny this sport from Wikipedia, i will never understand. It is a well known sport in the town of Grantham, just because it is not well known internationally shouldn't have any effect upon your decision. The King's School itself isn't exactly renowned nationwide, but it has a place on wikipedia because it exists! ROOFIO EXISTS! So why delete it? Probably because you have nothing better to do. It is an important part of sixth form life that rivals football in Manchester, tennis in WImbledon etc etc. and I am sure it will reach that level given the time and acceptance that it deserves! And when it is big, maybe when you've deleted this you will have your regrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — DaveyWundaBoi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When it is big, then other people will have written about it, and we can use those sources to create a proper encyclopedia article. No one doubts that this game exists; the problem is that no one has written about it in reliable sources, so we have nothing on which to base an article. Powers ^T 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we had video evidence of the school championships forthcoming? Would that be evidence enough that it is a large enough sport and worthy of a page? We could even have a log book kept. unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk

No, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research. Powers ^T 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surely the fact that it has been mentioned in the numerous external references is evidence enough of reliability of the game's article? It also appears to conform to Wikipedia's description of "Reliable Sources". The fact that I have written on it is proof of it being important, as well as existing, and the fact that it has been edited by others, supports this? King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — King's Roofio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, it is not in question whether or not it exists. What we need are reliable sources about the game, and no -- those don't count as reliable sources. Powers ^T 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand the above - I think we're all agreed as to the fact that Roofio exists. The question is, what do you deem as a reliable source? I have read Wikipedia's guidelines and believe that the articles conforms. Perhaps an external author could travel to Grantham and observe one of the many games which occur all over the town. Cricket isn't played everywhere but there is still an article on it. What's to say that part of it - if not all of it - wasn't written by an avid cricketer? Roofio is a notable game, in that it exists, is played and is spreading fast, the fact that it was written by Roofio fans only enhances its credibility. The article aims not to promote or advertise the sport, simply to describe and inform readers about the sport, its rules and some of its interesting background. The article is referenced and, in contrast with some of the other articles on the list of Game-related deletion discussions,informative and in keeping with Wikipedia protocol. The article will, with time, and the additions of other editors, become referenced further and even more credible than it is now. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.120 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — 217.44.135.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If "an external author" were to travel to Grantham and observe a game, and writes an article that gets published in a major newspaper or magazine, then we might be able to write an encyclopedia article on the topic. Do you understand the difference between some guy writing something on a blog and a professional reporter having an article published in a periodical? Powers ^T 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletio The first sentence of the article asserts non-notability and the lack of any independant sources proves it. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may suggest, the best solution is to merge this article with the school in question. make a category under the school page whereby people interested in the sport can read all about it. In my mind this is not notable enough to be an article of its own but can make a good category under the sport section of the school article. I already have a delete vote on top so I didn't vote but I believe Merging to be the best course of action.  Rmzadeh  ►  02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete textbook case of WP:NFT Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge Roofio is not a textbook case of WP:NFTThe game is recorded and documented with match reviews, score sheets and competiters' details. Roofio was not made up one day, it has evolved from centuries of sport at one of the oldest schools in England. As stated above, the article is not aimed at promoting the game - Promotion should be a side product of the real reason that I have written the article, to add to Wikipedia, informative and widely relevant material. The article is referenced in many places, none of which I am the author of. I will merge an edit of the page with the school site although I am still adamant that it should be an article in its own right. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — King's Roofio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep/Merge Powers, are you suggesting that something should only be added to Wikipedia once it has been written about in a major magazine or newspaper? I can think of many less notable stubs that have no grounding in popular media but remain here nonetheless. I would suggest that this page be merged with the school's article until such time as it warrants its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B90 b91 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — B90 b91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Bingo! I think you're starting to get it. Yes, we only keep articles on things that have been written about in significant sources. If we did otherwise, we would have no reliable sources on which to base an article, would we? Powers ^T 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep/Merge Thank you. On this note, allow me to draw your attention to Eton Fives , a self admitted "uncommon sport", not dissimilar to although admittedly slightly more widespread than Roofio. Eton Fives has none of the references you speak of and is linked to similar pages as Roofio. Even more striking is the resemblence between Roofio and the article on the Eton Wall Game. I cannot distinguish enough of a difference in this instance to remove Roofio without removing articles on numerous other sports. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't vote twice. I might also add that all this sock- and meatpuppetry is not helping your cause. 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 17:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Simply because I happen to have few other contributions to Wikipedia does not mean I should be considered a puppet of 'King's Roofio', I have made real-life contributions to Roofio as a sport and feel it should be represented in some way, in this I am in agreement with 'King's Roofio'. I do feel however, it is perhaps not deserving of its own page. Also, as has already been asked, please sign your comments. B90 b91 —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I have duly tagged Eton Wall Game as refimprove. Thanks for pointing out that article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, don't merge Non-notable sport. Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Searches for sources return no reliable sources, but many blogs. The school's website doesn't mention this sport, so it's definitely made up and likely irrelevant to the history of the school. Cunard (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Roofio is not made up. Whether or not it is relevant to the history of the school is neither here nor there. Roofio is part of the school's history and should not be discounted any more than the fact that Newton was an Old Boy. More importantly the history of the school is important to Roofio and, Roofio, far from being "made up in one day" has in fact developed over centuries. Development of the sport as we know it today has been influenced by records of a Roofio based equivalent played for years. King's Roofio (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any reliable sources to verify your assertions? Cunard (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned earlier, the school's website certainly had numerous references to Roofio - although I have been informed that the section on it has disappeared. I will speak to the system admin. as soon as possible and have this sorted. Other sources include the Grantham Journal. The Journal has reported the spread of Roofio and even included match reports. SJ Branson's book, "The King's School Grantham - 660 years of a Grammar School." also provides evidence to further Roofio's case. SJ Branson has been heavily involved in the school's archives for a number of years and I'm sure that if required, he would be available for comment. King's Roofio (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per no assertion of notability; come back when notability is established. Also: Article claims the sport was made up by "Brad Taylor," but the name redirects to List of Home Improvement characters. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies - the Brad Taylor referenced appears to be the incorrect person. I shall remove the link! However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that in fact it does not claim the sport was "made up" by him - instead that Roofio as we know it today has in fact developed over centuries. Brad Taylor was one of the people who helped "reinvent" the sport; deciding to write official rules, etc. King's Roofio (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for clearing up the bad redirect over Brad Taylor. Cunard's question stands: If roofio developed over several centuries, I expect multiple reliable sources will document its development. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reliable sources are available although, the papers described in the article are currently held by the King's School Archives and are not available in an electronic format. However, I will attempt to determine whether any local or national archives hold copies of the information and reference them straight away. King's Roofio (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://roofio-sport.blogspot.com/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to me to be a case of WP:NFT, although probably some mention of this could be made in the article about the school in question. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Speedy delete Who then was a gentleman? thank you for your concern. Following your nomination for speedy deletion, the following has been agreed and forwarded to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Information in the article belongs to me and also to the author of the link you posted and we are both prepared to allow re-use. Please remove speedy deletion.

This is to confirm that Roofio and the author of the article (King's Roofio (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)) have permission to use text from [1] and [2], awarded to them by the author of that site; "Luke.Johno". Other parts of [3] appear to be taken from my original article, on Wikipedia. I hereby give "Luke.Johno" rights to use this information freely. Both links contain the message "Re-use is permitted under the GFDL". King's Roofio (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

King's Roofio (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish to refer participants to the Eton Field Game article. This particle article has fewer citations than the Roofio page and yet is considered to be sufficiently relevant for publication. This begs the question, why is the Roofio page being targetted? While Roofio has rich history at the school, it is evidently a fledging nation sport and as of yet lacks reference in the wider press, yet this makes the information on the page no less credible. The Eton Football Variant articles rely upon their historical relevance to sport at Eton College, yet Roofio holds the same relevance to the sport at the King's School.Thelliwell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Thelliwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STOP creating usernames to defend your position! this is getting out of hand here.. an article for deletion is no place to counjour up users, compare with other articles or any of the nonsense going on here... it is a place for editors to come to a consensus as to the merits of the article in question using the guidelines provided. This article is simply not notable enough! I am sure many more like this have escaped the editors and I'm sure that Wikipedia has many article in worst shape then this one but that is no excuse. if you find one, please report it to be csd'd, proded or afd'd... now back to this article... the consensus is to delete the article. there are some who believe that some the some material used could be transferred to the school wiki but other then that almost no one has voted to keep the article other then the article's authors. a game played amongst a few high-school kids is hardly a notable subject for Wikipedia. --  Rmzadeh  ►  21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly a non-notable game, played only at one school. A multiplicity of meat/sockpuppet votes will, I trust, be discounted by the closing admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Not only is there no notable sources for this, the only sources listed are from a blog. This blog, aside from the three June 2009 entries is entirely empty. Not only that, but King's Roofio, you've also voted multiple times in this poll, which also isn't allowed. It fails notability, simple as that.  Fyyer  21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am happy to discuss plans for the deletion of my article although I resent it being implied that my argument is "A multiplicity of meat/sockpuppet votes" and that I am inventing usernames. If I have read the relevant article/notification correctly, surely the number of votes is irrelevent - It is the content which counts. What benefit would I receive from creating multiple usernames!? I assure you that I am not. If there are other people who share my views then surely that is valuble to discussion. To the matter in hand, Roofio is not "a game played amongst a few high-school kids", it is a developing sport played by hundreds. It is notable, referenced and becoming more widely played every day. Removing Roofio is simply a way to stifle the growth of an exciting amateur sport and the enjoyment of a large number of people. King's Roofio (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are sorely mistaken in the assumption that the original author is simply creating usernames to defend the article. I certainly am no puppet of the author, and although known to him, I like many others have contributed to this discussion of my own volition. Furthermore, I would ask you to consider the viewpoint that face of the media is changing. While in the past newspapers etc. have been regarded as the bastions of information and credibility, recent developments in personal media, such as blogs, have meant that personal information sharing has gained massively in terms of authority to the point that they are in regular use with esteemed writers and media agencies. Wikipedia itself is a child of the internet age, yet some members seem to refuse that the internet has completely changed information sharing and scoff at the use of blogs and social networking sites as citations, when these are possibly some of the most information rich resources available today. Thelliwell (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A load of spherical objects. (Or possibly aged shoe repairers.) I might be interested to learn how Albert Ball and Newton managed to get balls from ASDA. Then again, I might not. Quote: "Removing Roofio is simply a way to stifle the growth of an exciting amateur sport and the enjoyment of a large number of people." Possibly. If this article is for the purpose of promoting this 'sport', then it falls foul of the rules on spam. Single purpose account support doesn't do a case much good - not that I see much case anyway. The bulk of the references come from a blog and do therefore not count as reliable evidence. I do not dispute that ASDA sell the balls. I am not so sure about the inaccessible references - mainly because there is no evidence to be had from them that I can get at. As to acceptability of blogs, Wikipedia does not accept Wikipedia as a reference for establishing evidence. Anything user-edited or self-published is suspect. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy delete tag for copyvio has been removed, despite the total lack of a legitimate GFDL claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the blog that it was copied from has released the text to GFDL. That wasn't there at the time of my copyvio tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I removed the speedy tag as the article does not, in my view, qualify for deletion under the rules as a copyvio. But please not my comment above, and on User talk:Who then was a gentleman? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]].[reply]

• Comment I suggest that Peridon re-reads the article and reminds himself that nowhere within it is a claim that Newton or Ball ever visited Asda. (The current rules of Roofio are a relatively recent addition to the sport) Also, if he cared to read the previous posts on this discussion, he would learn that the article on Roofio aims, in no way to promote the sport. At worst, it wishes only to promote understanding and to inform readers about it. The references have been selected on the basis that they are relevant. If you find an outdated or edited link, please direct me to it and I will be more than happy to amend.

I agree entirely that anything user-edited or self-published is suspect, including, as you suggest, large parts of Wikipedia. However, references to appropriate sources of this nature cannot be considered any more "suspect" than information published in say, a national newspaper or a thesis. There are many instances of respectable authors conveying misleading information to readers and so I do not believe that the use of user-edited material is an issue as long as there is consensus of its reliability - so far you have disagreed. As I have said, please direct me towards any problem links, I will attempt to solve problems as soon as possible in order to make the article more verifiable. I have also offered to obtain e-copies of paperwork citing Roofio as an traditional past time and developing sport. King's Roofio (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to previous comments regarding the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia protocol, I would wish to assert that if the rules are not applied uniformly, then there is no grounds to apply them at all. Effectively, what is happening is that members are targetting articles of their choice rather than acting as moderators. The call for deletion has become a matter of personal prerogative and therefore offers no valid grounds for deletion, hence rendering the call void. Furthermore, the notability of the topic is subjective and I do not think it is the place of any member to dictate what is notable to any particular individual. The Wikipedia guidelines governing notability are vague and seem to be open to interpretation by individual members. Thelliwell (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been reading and editing at Wikipedia, that you are so much more well-versed in the rules than those who have been editing here for so long? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I am no seasoned editor of Wikipedia. However, I think the viewpoint of a new-comer offers a refreshing insight into a system that is fundamentally biased. My point is no less valid despite my lack of experience and I note that you have not directly addressed the issue I have raised, notably the flaws in this system of policing. No-one would stand for national laws which were randomly applied, so why should such intermittent rules be accepted here? The Wikipedia guidlines are the core of the deletion claim, yet I do not see how they can be regarded with any value if they are not applied uniformly. Again, on the notability issue, Roofio holds substantial notability amongst others, though admittedly not yourselves. Why do your opinions count above those who have interest in this sport? I've done all my homework thank you. Thelliwell (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained above, all that is required is for someone, anyone to provide reliable sources, as per Wikipedia's long-standing, evenly-applied, WP:N requirements. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More to the point, the long-standing, evenly-applied verifiability requirements. Article creator repeatedly claims sources exist to verify the statements in the article, but apparently hasn't added them to the article. As I understand WP:RS, a source doesn't have to be on the Internet, it just has to be reliable. I'm going to check the article's current state, and if sources have been duly added and they check out, I'll strikethrough much of this comment. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up: The main references are a Blogspot site (blogs are not reliable, last I checked); the Asda site (which is a supermarket), the Roofball site (which doesn't list Roofio), and the school -- where I was unable to find the sport listed anywhere. I raise a strong question about verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If only they spent half this time and effort on their homework. <sigh> Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who wishes to change Wikipedia's policies about how it assesses articles that are undergoing an AfD process -- or any other policy -- is welcome, like everyone else, to make a case in the appropriate venue. That venue is not this discussion. The individual who will decide on whether or not to delete the article in question can only use the established guidelines and policies in making that decision; if s/he decides to abandon them, then it is very nearly guaranteed that the decision will be overturned in the Deletion Review process. If you'd care to spend a great deal of time working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, like everyone here has who has spent weeks, months and years learning Wikipedia's policies and how they are properly applied on a volunteer basis, you'd be welcome; learning those policies is an essential part of trying to change them, should you care to do that. But there is no point in trying to change policy in this venue; it isn't going to happen, period, full stop. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable sport  Chzz  ►  23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accounting4Taste, neither Thelliwell nor King's Roofio have claimed to be seasoned Wikipedia editors, and the rules and regulations that surround the deletion policy were merely mentioned and in no way deserving of a patronising response from yourself. Such a comment was unneccessary and unhelpful to this article's discussion. The question is not of "learning the policies" in an attempt to change them, but of Roofio, the article which we find ourselves discussing. Articles have been found just today that display a map of the School dating back to around the 1800's, possibly earlier (needs confirming), that clearly display an area designated to the playing of a ball game at free periods (break/lunch), the name of the game is stated on the map but it is rather unclear on first glance, and we have endeavoured to take the document to our local library for a closer inspection. Once we have this document returned, we shall look to photograph/scan the map and place it upon the internet, citing it as an article which comfortably holds enough evidence to be used as a significant reference that "Roofio" was not in fact made up "in one day". Twbanks (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Twbanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That will, unfortunately, probably not count as third party reliable evidence. It will be self-published and contribute to the feeling that at best this is Original Research. If the game does in fact have a history, independent evidence (not blogs or self-published stuff) will be needed. You might not like this, but this is how it is. There are many games played at one school (at mine it was nurdling) that do not deserve articles. The Eton game referred to above is well documented and established. I personally do not regard Eton with the respect that many give it, but the documented notability is there. In the case of Roofio, it isn't. If there is a reference to it in the school website - not in a freely edited area - it might increase the chances of survival. Published on the web by students of the school - same value as a blog. Peridon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Peridon, thank you for your comment. Further to what you were saying about self published sources, the sources to which we refer exist only in paper copy, either in a book or as original papers. To clarify, if we wish to reference these, must they be uploaded to a non-user-edited source? Thanks 81.159.169.229 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — 81.159.169.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem with 'papers' is that they are not usually 'published'. That is, made public. Books are usually published, but the self-published ones are normally discounted - with some rare exceptions caused by the notability (otherwise established) of the author. You might think we are ba=eing hard on you. You probably haven't seen some of the unutterable (and often only semi-literate) junk that lands here (and normally is disposed of fairly quickly...). Peridon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not at all, I understand that Wikipedia wouldn't be much of an encylopedia without at least some determination of the reliability of sources. So, would you consider a proper, relevant reference on a school website, in a local paper and in the aformentioned book a reliable source which would allow the Roofio article to remain? (Assuming that they really are relevant!) Thanks, 81.159.169.229 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Many people learned to play many games long before Wikipedia came along, so if yours has been around for centuries, one article here (or not) shouldn't make any difference to the sport's future. If/when someone writes a book or two on the topic, or a few newspaper articles, then will be the right time to create the Wikipedia article in question. In the meantime, add any information you have that can be found in verifiable reliable sources to the school page... oh.... there isn't any solidly sourced information? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has now been referenced properly. User-edited links have been removed. Can it be kept? Thanks, King's Roofio (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete before the entire school votes keep. Blatantly non-notable. Merits a mention on the school's page perhaps, but no more. WP:NOTNEWS etc. Disembrangler (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned before, the notability of Roofio in comparison with many of the other "sports" articles available on Wikipedia appears quite positive. Roofio's popularity and peoples' awareness of it is growing. It is well documented and efforts are being made to continue this and to develop its existance. 81.159.169.229 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (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.