Talk:Hooverball

Merge proposal

I don't think Medicine ball cabinet is notable on its own and it seems like a merge to Hooverball would be the best place to send the redirect. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

One is political and the other is sport. So much for merging. With regard to Wikipedia:Notability, it looks like Medicine ball cabinet is better sourced than Hooverball. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny about that, but sourcing isn't a measure of notability. Hooverball is a more general topic while medicine ball cabinet is, basically, a nickname for the cabinet related to Hooverball. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In the same way Heidi Game is, basically, a nickname for a football game related to Heidi (1968 film)? Or, more to the point, a brain trust is, basically, a nickname for a cabinet related to brains? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Since those things wouldn't reasonably be merged or even seen as particularly related, it wouldn't make sense to merge it here. Is there a better place that medicine ball cabinet would be merged to, then? If there is no place, I can nominate it for deletion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k., let's talk about notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ..." - Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. How does this topic fail that test? (In the alternative, you might try a merge to Herbert_Hoover#Administration_and_cabinet.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You want me to prove that it's not notable? I could outline a failure to find notability, but the burden actually goes the other way. Others have to prove that it is notable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking you to prove anything. I am trying to find out why you believe I am wrong. Is there a lack of significant coverage? Are the sources not reliable? Are the sources not independent? Once I know what your concern is then I can try to resolve it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't show significant coverage and everything I've seen talks about the medicine ball cabinet in reference to hooverball. In addition, as you have insisted that the medicine ball cabinet article is about the term (rather than the topic that the terms refers to), it's even less notable as a standalone article. Wikipedia articles are normally about things, not the terms for them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, now it is time for me to say "I see what you are saying." Following your reasoning I agree that a merge with Hooverball might be appropriate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the medicine ball cabinet is in fact significant in its own right, as the "brain trust" of the Hoover administration. Sure, it has dropped in significance since its time--as has just about everything about the Hoover administration, really, that admin being a prime example of history's losers. But it was a fairly big deal at the time. BTW, I hope to expand the article soon (members, etc.). Doprendek (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that its fine If you combine the medicine ball cabinet topic. It is relevant and would make sense in the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.252.135 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not merge. The sport and the cabinet group are totally different topics.TCO (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hooverball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025164910/http://hoover.archives.gov/education/hooverball.html to http://hoover.archives.gov/education/hooverball.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)