Deletion of Goof Ball

Comment: I don't want to sound like a total defender of this article, but I don't see that it's been demonstrated ''found the original stuff; see below'' that there are no such sources, only that the article (which the principal author says (s)he's still right in the middle of working on) doesn't have any cited in it at this time.  I.e., it's entirely possible that Wikipedia:Notability can be satisfied with some effort.  I don't see anyone saying here whether they have tried to ascertain whether this is likely to be sourceable as notable.  It's also possible that there are no such sources for this piece, but I am at least slightly skeptical that someone would have written as much as was written, engaged us here, assured us that it's still in progress, etc., if the article were utter nonsense.  Sure, it does happen from time to time, but most hoax articles a "drive-by" edits. There is also a stronger likelihood that the main author is connected in some way with the organization sponsoring the alleged tournaments, or one of their promoters, which could raise some / issues, but does not necessarily mean that a good article couldn't eventually come out of this one the editor understands our policies more fully.  If there are sources, I would expect them to be Philly, et al., newspapers and such, so |Google may not be much help.  I spent ''weeks'' trying to source another game, known by hundreds of thousands if not more, and played remarkably consistently all over at least North America, and it was very, very difficult to find anything, because it is a "folk" game, "ya just know how to play; everyone does" I was told when I contacted a venue that actually holds tournaments in that game, but has no printed rules.  Our reliance on e-sources is perhaps too heavy.  Anyway, if this game really is the subject organized competition in several major cities, dating back over a decade, it's absolutely noteworthy enough for an article (and like Fuhghettabout, I am generally quite quick to prod/SD/AfD any  pool games like Indians Don't Share Lunches, so I'm generally ''un''sympathetic to things like this); it's just a matter of ''demonstrating'' that notability with a couple of references. Sorry for the ramble; just feel this stuff is worth thinking about (generally in AfD, not just in this nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SPAM||WP:GHITS||WP:NFT)

Comment: Update: Actually '''Speedy delete''' per #G1|G1: The game rules recently added to the article are (in summary form) ''precisely'' those of common eight-ball so the article's premise that this is a notable and variant version of eight-ball is "patent nonsense" under CSD G1: it is "unsalvageably incoherent" reasoning, that "while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: A few of you appear to be ''still'', somehow, operating under the ca. 2004-5 "fame and popularity" conception of notability, an idea long abandoned.  Please actually read  before throwing it around in AfD.  Notability means ''non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources'', period.  "Not yet well-known" does ''not'' automatically translate into "non-notable". A great many notable things are not well-known, and a great many well-known things, like the fact that boogers are salty, are not notable. I'm skeptical that the author of this article will be able to demonstrate notability, but that's no reason to attack him with accusations of hoaxing, or attempt to fallaciously bend his own words against him ("not well known" coming from him almost certainly meant "not well known outside the &#91;alleged&#93; significant area in which it is well known") in a rather tortured reinterpretation of .  Play fair
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)