Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunchtime soccer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunchtime soccer

Lunchtime soccer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clearly violates WP:NFT and notabllity guidlines. Soccer is notable, but there is no significant verifiable source that I know of for Lunchtime soccer. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The page lunchtime soccer should not be deleted. It is a good place for people to reference when they are in dispute of the rules which they play by. Particularly at my school the players are very passionate. They have even become violent because they are not clear on the rules. This page is a reference to stop these things happening. It is also a log of luchtime soccer/football communities around the world. There are many other wikipedians i know who have found this page a good reference. Therefore it should not be deleted because it doesn't breach any of the wikipedia rules and it only ever helps people. The verifiable source is other wikipedians. And the millions of people across the world who play the beautiful game, the world game. A reaonable person would know how popular soccer/football across the world is. More people play unofficial soccer than any other sport. - jensen 198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:43:42
    • Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "...reference to stop these things happening...", as you have said. More people playing unofficial soccer does not make it more notable than soccer, a notable sport. And yes, it does break a notability criteria guideline, WP:NFT, and even WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:NN, contrary to what you have said in your comment. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, This is for the minors. To share their experiences on a minor scale. Why should Frank lampard or Ronaldinho get their own page but not us? They are not special and nor are they more importatnt than us. At our school (the Friends' School) it is great fun and very passionate. Sometimes weve even stayed fifteen minutes after were supposed to be in class! What you say about our school and its competitions is dirtying our legacy. We want people to know just how important, soccer(thats not even on a major scale) is to the people in a small city in Australia. There is nothing wrong with this page, anymore than there is something wrong with Harry Kewell's page, it is merely us sharing our views off soccee andwhat is wrong with that? Tell me please. - Sam v1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv1.0 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:50:37
    • Frank Lampard and Ronaldinho both have won awards for their expertise and performance in soccer and Harry Kewell has had media coverage from multiple, verifiable sources- just look at the articles! Importance does not put one in Wikipedia, notability does. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a group of proses. I find nothing offensive or wrong with your article- morality does not govern whether an article stays or not. But verifiability and notability through multiple sources keeps an article in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • A verifiable source doesn't nescessarily have to be on the internet, tv or in newspapers. It can be a person who has not published their information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:45:55
        • Wrong. If it's not published, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. Please read our Wikipedia:Attribution policy. Uncle G 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • But how do you prove what is published is actually true
        • Before refuting my arguments, please look at the Wikipedia guidelines I have shown, if not more. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain exactly which section of these links it has breached —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:47:53
  • Delete per the two comments above. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Informal soccer competition at an individual school. Doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not something thought up in one school day, or by one school or one town or one country even. I have visited countless schools arcorss the Asis-pacific region and everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules. It is clear that this page is verifiable and needed by many people - jensen 198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:32:54
  • Delete There's nothing wrong with it, it just shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you want a page on this subject, by all means go ahead somewhere else. Geocities hosts free webpages. - Richfife 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- How is notability criteria guideline not Wikipedia rules? Again, you contradict your argument by saying "...everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules..." Why don't they just read the Soccer page for info? If you want to keep the article here, you need to present multiple, verifiable sources by the media (newspapers such as the New York Times, news channels such as CNN, or even an independent report). You need to read the guidelines I presented a little more carefully. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly which rules they breach. not the links or the over all thing. tell me exactly. i've gone over them and i don't see the problem. i'll give in if you say exactly what

  • Delete non-encyclopedic violation of WP:V and WP:NFT--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, specifically violates clause "Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable." which requires, "that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also note that, "Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes." This would be better placed on a freely hosted website. - Mocko13 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not for my own use its for the use of the milllions across the world. Where else can people want to find the rules of a sport and the variations of those rules, they go to an encyclopedia. I will publish my information then it will be verifiable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

I play golf, table tennis, played basketball, mind you. Feel free to publish your info! Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Comment- Your sarcasm and comments on an irrelevent subject is not encouraged. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non verifiable information that violates WP:NN and WP:MADEUP. Article seems to be original research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, WP:OR. As many people pointed out, unless its published from a independent source, it isn't considered notable.--K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is useful for millions it shouldn't be deleted. whether it breaches rules or not it is encyclopediac content and many people would agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

Comment-As long as it breaches Wikipedian policies, it shouldn't be included. If you feel so strongly about this, I suggest you put it in another website, or find enough sources to make the article notable. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- Jensen 198's consensus vote and comments should be disregarded, as his basis of argument is contradictory of Wikipedia's guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sources i already have one there are more coming—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as not being remotely encyclopedic and thought up at school one day (or over the course of several days). What was that AfD in about September last year about another high-school lunchtime game that turned into a farce? I can't find it in my contribs anymore. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia.

    • Would you be able to cite these sources? Either here or in the article, it doesn't matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources: AIS Singapore, Roselea Public School, Sydney, Taroona Primary School, Hobart, The Friends' School, Hobart. Jensen 198 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mind giving us links to these sources? --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


They do not have internet sites that i know of however i will try to find some for you.

If they aren't internet sources, what sources are they? Text? --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to sources:
- http://www.ais.com.sg/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_International_School_Singapore
- Mention of Roselea on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlingford,_New_South_Wales#Public_primary_schools
- www.taroonaprimary.tased.edu.au/
- www.friends.tas.edu.au
- it doesn't seem to recognise the last two but type them in and they will work. There you go.

Those demonstrate the existence of schools, yes. How does that demonstrate that this particular variant of soccer is played at those schools (let alone anything else)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do any of these sources actually mention "Lunchtime Soccer" or are me meant to assume they do? If so, please point them out to me. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Textbook example of WP:NFT. eaolson 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I suggest that those defending this article quit resorting to personal attacks because it doesn't help their case in the least. Most of us at Wikipedia aren't going to be daunted by being called nerds; indeed, quite a few of us would probably embrace the term. Catbag 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this page is very subjective. Thiere are no official lunchtime soccer rules. The article is also not written in a formal encyclopedic tone and seems to be original research. 71.176.150.42 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that "This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia." There is no official definition of the word or phrase "y'all" although i believe there is a wikipedia page about it's definition that has no sources and yet still has not been put up for deletion. Why is my useful page being targeted? Jensen 198 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentWhat are you talking about? Y'all has five sources in the article. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Additionally, the fact that there are articles you feel should be deleted doesn't mean that an article you argue to be useful should be kept. If you feel that an article you've found is unsourced or should be deleted for some other reason, you're welcome to list it at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable per notability guidelines. This is more suited to a personal website. Wikpedia isn't a reference guide. Solent 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Notability; the article does not asset notability, nor does it provide sources to back up notability. The guideline here is WP:NOTE. The article is totally unattributed - all information on the encyclopedia needs to be attributable to reliable sources which are verifiable. This does not achieve any of these. Also, this article appear to be made up and is original research. WP:NFT! --Haemo 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete soccer rules for an individual school are about as un-notable as you can get. Suriel1981 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Suriel1981 --Zabadab (Talk) @ 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is poorly written and these sort of rules for soccer would vary depending on your school or where you live. Its not written from a neutral point of view as some local teams for some place are mentioned, I mean Fry & Oats means something to someone (but the rest of us dont have a clue who they are). --PrincessBrat 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fry and Oats are famous Quakers. I'm sure if you google search their names you will get some information on them. The rules for soccer do not vary and they are not for an individual school. As per above they are from many schools and they are the rules that you would find nearly everywhere in my continent+. There are other articles in wikipedia and other encyclopedias that note the information may vary slightly in different areas. Jensen 198 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable or encyclopedic. Adambro 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. It looks like another one of those made up games from high school that could even fall under WP:NEO and WP:OR. Mkdwtalk 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say soccer is another one of those made up games from high school. Don't you realise what soccer/football is???

This is the same fallacy as the one on my Talk page (namely "My school is notable, so you can't delete what we do there"). Yes, soccer/football itself is notable. The rules that you and your friends play by in your lunch breaks at school, however, are not. That's the key difference. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not ready for the big league. Jensen 198, if you want to keep developing this article, consider copying the wikitext into a new user page, User:Jensen 198/Lunchtime soccer. John Vandenberg 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I will, although isn't that making my user page a blog, which you can not do. How ever this is encyclopedic content and i still don't see why it should be deleted. Jensen 198 01:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Consensus here is that the article isnt encyclopedic content, so rather than contest it, prove it by taking the article onto your own userspace and improve it until it is. This will not save it entirely, as someone may list it on WP:MFD, but if you are actively working on the subject, and find real reliable sources for the statements made in the article, then people will leave your user page alone until it is ready for prime time. John Vandenberg 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way is it encyclopedic content? Other users have demonstrated the policies which this article violates, thereby explaining why it should be deleted. "Encyclopedic content" is not a synonym for "information". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, oh my, this is about an encyclopædic as the contents of my fridge. Lankiveil 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
Well, the contents of your fridge could be encyclopedic....an apple, a half eaten pizza....no, seriously, I can't believe this discussion is taking so long...Article should be thrown into the trash a long time ago. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't pick on my page. It shouldn't ever be thrown in the trash you fridge loving fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 February 2007

  • Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, not even the creator —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richfife (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete in its present form. An articles about informal games of soccer would be appropriate, if sources could be found, and regional variation could be accommodated. But this totally unsourced article shows obvious signs of being based on a single school, and of policies which have never been written down. I find it odd that it should have attracted quite this much debate, since the total absence of all the customary WP standards is so very evident. What the supporters should do, is try to write a proper article.DGG 07:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This article however refers to rules played in playground games in one particular school. Suriel1981 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lunchtime sex ;-) Ohconfucius 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for its extreme non-notability. --Roisterer 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much as non-notable as it gets ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable non-verifiable variant of the sport. Qwghlm 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This page rocks don't delete it. Jensen 198 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You've already said that. Additionally that's not a great reason to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete However, I don't know if I'm just making more of a mess here, Note that there is already an article for Street football which covers the ground of the massive popularity of informal football games. I say that without any comment as to the notability of that particular article... Robotforaday 16:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Street football. Lunchtime soccer. Aren't they the exact same at the end of the day. Just leave both of the articles alone and stop wasting everybody's time. Jensen 198 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit. The Street football article seems to deal with an international competition. This article, on the other hand, deals with the rules that a bunch of friends play by. There's no proof that the variant of the game under discussion here is played anywhere but in one school - such sources as have been provided simply show that other schools exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I don't think that you grasp the knowledge of how important it is to keep this arcticle. Your statements mean nothing compared to the vast seriousness of my arguement. Please, for the good of all, don't delete it. Orlando Mason

Dear Mr Mason (or Jensen198),
The editors of Wikipedia are yet to see the argument that you claim to be vastly serious advanced anywhere. What has been said (ad infinitum) so far is that this article is about a variant of soccer/football played by some friends at a certain high school. No proof of that has been provided, and no proof has been provided that it is played anywhere else. If you believe that the article should not be deleted, please provide sources showing its existence and its notability forthwith. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The sport of lunchtime soccer is an extremely interesting variant of normal or even casual soccer. Many people around the world will be enlightened on the beauty of the World Game.Orlando Mason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20:52, 28 February 2007 (talk • contribs) Jensen 198.

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.