Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bootball

  • No Google hits for any page containing both the "major teams" mentioned.
  • One official site, bootball.org, seems to be about football. Nothing mentioned about a new sport.

Probably a hoax - or at least, if not a hoax, entirely non-notable. EuroSong talk 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:NFT or in this case out of school. -- RHaworth 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reverted blanking of this page by User:Cdelaland, who has also edited the articel in question. 68.39.174.238 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Absurd, WP is not for things made up in one school day. Wickethewok 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - I know WP is not for things made up in one school day, and it's been a long time since any of the members of the Bootball community have been in school. Merely because you haven't played the game doesn't mean those that do don't take it very seriously. It seems rather elitist to call it a hoax or absurd.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdelaland (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, unverifiable; please feel free to add cites or add some other reasons why you feel this is a notable or encyclopedic entry. Kuru talk 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely WP:NFT, due to the lack of WP:V and WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax sport. Hardee67 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - most definitely not a hoax! i guarantee that every one of you have played a variation of bootball at one point of your life. google hits are not the end all and be all of empirical facts, so lets not get hasty with the finger pointing. just because you cant find info on your trusty interweb, doesnt mean its not real. read the article again, and turn down the conspiracy radar for a minute. --Radioactiveflesh 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Congratulations on your first edit. Since you're new here, I'd suggest reading WP:V and WP:RS, which might shed some light on the apparent conspiracy here. --Kinu t/c 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Kinu. Yes Radioactiveflesh (are you the contributor to the article with the IP address?) - we're not saying that it definitely is a hoax; just that it looks like one.. and the reason it looks like one is because when we try to find independently verifiable information about it, that information can not be found. Google is not an absolute measure of notability, it must be said - but if the sport really was notable as mentioned in the article, then SOME sort of references would be found on Google. Take, for example, the statement '"Page 99" and "Axe Wound" are the two teams credited with rejuvenating interest in Bootball.' If they are "credited" with this, then why can no information be found on the teams - let alone the fact that people attribute credit to them? An article needs to be verifiable. Even if someone submits an article here which is 100% true, it may still be deleted if it's impossible to show that it's true. I hope you understand now :) EuroSong talk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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.