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, podcasts aren't really WP:RS, and there isn't much more in sourcing. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weaselwordy and unreferenced fingercruft? Prod removed by obvious SPA User:Lord of the Joust. External links references [1]. Media section shows one RS, a local newspaper in Georgia. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: There's a few other sources that are borderline, but there's also a podcast by BBC Radio 4 on the subject, which pushes me over the fence. It needs to address its tone and add those sources, but that should be enough. Independent editors should give it a shot to avoid COI. Sidatio 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic - that's the first time I've ever heard the term "fingercruft". I'm sad to think that I may never hear it again. Sidatio 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seem to be some sources out there. Cleanup might help the article. [[Guest9999 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Also of interest is the fact that the "president" of this so called federation also refers to himself as Lord of the Joust. Call me paranoid but I'm pretty sure that the creator, Lord of the Joust and the president of this federation are in fact the same person. Only sources are the "federation" website and a link to YouTube. Sorry, I'm not buying it. MartinDK 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are actual news sources, the most reliable being the aforementioned podcast by the BBC. Agreed about Lord of the Joust, though - if there's an article to be had, it should be edited independently to avoid COI. Sidatio 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly weak keep. Much to my surprise, a quick Google indicates that this is likely to be sourceable, though I haven't dug in to see how much real info there might be. Wooty, you deserve an award for funniest usage of the "-cruft" suffix. :) Pinball22 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea - already done. :-) Sidatio 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! :) Pinball22 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Hello, I am the person alluded to in the article, The Lord of the Joust. I did not originally create this Wikipedia entry. Someone else did and not even by my requestion. I waited a long time for one to appear on here. However, I've done some very slight changes to the webpage such as when some hooligans added allusions to pokey in the entry and some other minor details. The sport, though currently small, is growing in popularity. We have been on NBC affiliate, BBC, and other television network programs. We were on The N9NE on Yahoo. We've been in multiple newspapers and are recognized as an obscure sport governing body. I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased—a very important trait of this site—encyclopedic source, so I haven't added much. I did add some references that are verifiable to the bottom of the entry. Someone definitely should undertake the task of cleaning up the mangled unorganized cruft (yes, a great word) of an entry. Thank you for your time. Lord of the Joust 19:15, 4 August 2007 (EST) — Lord of the Joust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong delete - Barely article that is completely being used for spam to market barely emerged phenomenon. WP:NFT. In fact, a search on google reveals that it's not going to be able to be sourced. It fails WP:NOTE - multiple non-trivial media sources. The Evil Spartan 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong comment Whilst the article needs work, there is the BBC source [2] which could be used in a cut down version. Guest9999 02:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong reply - multiple non-trivial sources I believe is the criterion for notability inclusion. This page has at best, a few non-trivial sources. I'm not at all under the belief that just because a phenomenon is mentioned once by the BBC that it deserves an article. This subject is so barely notable, and is clearly using this Wikipedia entry as a vehicle for self-promotion. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, normal comment? A few = more than one. More than one = multiple. Also, I fail to see how a search on Google reveals concretely that there will never be another source on the article ever again. Care to expound? Sidatio 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Normal response - where did I ever say there would never be any more sources on the article again? I said that at the moment, it's non-notable, and one or two sources on google scantly passes WP:NOTE, if at all.

And, btw, the second definition, according to of multiple is manifold, which defines as various in kind or quality; many in number; numerous; multiplied; complicated; diverse. I hardly think two online articles qualifies as many in number, numberous, complicated, and diverse. So, the fact is, that the word multiple is certainly up for interpretation; however, if we go by the raw definition more than one, then having two sources automatically qualifies every subject for notability on Wikipedia. And I don't think that interpretation is correct. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - I misread what you said about your Google search there. As far as your interpretation of "multiple" goes, you're right - it is indeed subject to debate. I've voted for keeps based on two notable sources before, though, and will more than likely continue to do so, especially if one of those sources is an institution as reliable as the BBC. Not that I care about finger-jousting so much; I just ended up on this because of the fantastic use of the word "fingercruft". I don't, however, think the article is as self-promoting as you seem to think it is. If the article does stick around (and if it does, it'll be by no consensus), I'd be interested to see what it looked like after sourcing. Since we have those sources, though, deletion's probably premature. But again, sorry about the misinterpretation. :-) Sidatio 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one welcome our new finger fighting overlords. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sidatio, WP:HEY. Bearian 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Aw, crap. Does that put me on the hook to expand this thing? Sidatio 21:53, 9 August 2007 (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.