Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 15

Chicago (pool) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Sigh. We're going to end up here anyway, so saving everybody a lot of time. See also User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChicago_.28pool.29. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. After Adam9007 (talk · contribs) nominated the article for deletion, Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) provide a link to an entry in a billiards encyclopedia and opposed deletion. SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Anarchyte (talk · contribs), and SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) voted "keep". No editor besides the nominator supported deletion, and Arxiloxos' source renders Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability inapplicable.

  There was a clear consensus to keep on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (which I have quoted below).

  Arxiloxos' source includes references to several other reliable sources about "Chicago (pool)" like The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing (which I have quoted below). The Handbook of Rules of Billiards and Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender are also mentioned as sources in the encyclopedia entry but are not available online.

  RoySmith's "delete" decision is neither unsupported by the consensus in the discussion nor by Wikipedia policy.

  Cunard (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion with closing admin:

  Extended content

  You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote: The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia [1]. So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press: Chicago 1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term "Rotation" derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU. 2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633. I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half: CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules "HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable. "RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online. Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Cunard (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Close was a WP:Supervote. Any overriding policy requirement to delete should be introduced to the discussion as a !vote. Urge Roy to revert close and !vote instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Arxiloxos' source provides enough appropriate referencing to impel a keep outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closing rationale didn't seem to be summarising or crystallising the discussion in any way. If it was intended as a rebuttal of the arguments presented then it was misplaced. Quite odd really. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to speedy keep SK#1 no argument for deletion WP:NPASR  This AfD was totally argued on notability grounds, an issue which began with the AfD nomination.  As per WP:N, the absence of sources in an article does not define an absence of notability.  The close is deficient by not citing policy.  Instead the close identifies a non-existent policy that blames our content contributors and AfD volunteers as reasons for deletion.  WP:N requires evidence, and the only delete !vote was a argument from
  WP:INSIGNIFICANCE).

  A second point is, since the close had nothing to do with the discussion, why aren't administrators sweeping through and deleting the articles without sources?  This is not intended as a rhetorical question.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Because it would be clearly opposed to WP policy, since it meets no speedy criterion. Even BLPs without sources can only be deleted on that basis via a 7 day exposure to the community at BLPPROD. There is a considerable difference between an admin doing something not permitted presumably hoping nobody notices, to an admin doing something they know may be controversial and immediately bringing it to a discussion board, as was the case here. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can we get agreement to move unsourced articles to draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I (respectfully) disagree about this being a supervote. What I saw was all the keep arguments being exceptionally lame. Saying, Can be better sourced if needed when there are zero sources in the article is an argument which shouldn't hold water. Likewise for although there are no references, some could be found. If they could be found, then find them, please.
  Spartaz extended the debate for a week with the explicit request that the people arguing to keep provide the sourcing they suggested must exist. And all that got us was, this is imaginably improvable and can be kept for such. We live and die by proper sources, or at least we should. I'm not sure I agree that the sources Cunard found and cited above are enough to meet our notability requirements, but props for at least putting in the effort to do the research and finding them. That being said, it's obvious that people here don't agree, so I've backed out my close, and will leave it to somebody else to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:N is a guideline that does not require sources. 
  WP:DEL7 supports the policies of both WP:V and WP:DP, and could be combined with WP:Deletion policy#Incubation.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn to keep. Sorry, but this was a supervote. The question of whether a particular source is adequate to establish notability is exactly what AfD is there to answer. If in the process of closing a discussion an administrator finds themselves wanting to tell the AfD participants that their opinions are simply wrong, then they should be taking part in the discussion as a participant rather than as a closer. Thparkth (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot since RoySmith has now overturned their own closure and reopened the AfD.  Sandstein  10:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]