Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crab soccer

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 keep. John254 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crab soccer[edit]

10,000 ghits, but the game really isn't notable. YechielMan 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's no dodgeball, but it appears to be a reasonably popular playground game. Aplomado ^talk 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not popularity that's important. It is whether the game has been documented in depth by multiple independent people that is important. There are a large number of books and articles written about children's games by scholars. It's a well-researched field. If this children's game merits inclusion, it should be relatively easy to cite sources to demonstrate that. Uncle G 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just added two references - that's documentation by multiple independent people. I'm sure it won't be too hard to find more references for this article.--HisSpaceResearch 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or claims to notability. TJ Spyke 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't actually own any books on outdoor games, but I think I remember seeing it in one of the New Games Books. It's quite a common playground game, really, and I'm sure there's another source. --N Shar 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on this one. There's enough ghits here that it's plausible that sources might be available. Give the authors an extra week or two to come up with them. But they have to be produced or Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I played this game a lot in school, I think it needs an article. --IvanKnight69 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are produced. We also played this at school, which isn't a reason for keeping. I would suggest Crab Football as a better candidate for reference hunting. CiaranG 10:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed to keep in light of references added. CiaranG 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references obviously, but if its around, keep it. Pablosecca 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pablosecca. I played this game as a kid; it's real as other editors have noted. And yes, 'crab football' could be made to redirect here, getting another 2000 google hits, so YechielMan's argument isn't entirely valid. Also, the Google test is far from infallible. Advertising companies aren't going to want to google bomb the term "crab football" as it won't generate any revenue.--HisSpaceResearch 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got another reference, and two external links. It's looking better now and far more worthy of inclusion than it was twenty minutes ago.--HisSpaceResearch 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I agree that the google test is not infallible; the guideline on WP:SET even says that. What I sometimes do is sort through bad articles in need of attention, such as WP:DEAD. I wonder if they should be deleted under the deletion policy, and generally I check five things:

The article text
References, or lack thereof
History (if only one non-bot user edited, it's not as good)
What links here (is this information relevant to some other topic?)
Search engine test. (Does the quantity and quality of Google results affirm notability?)

The text and incoming links were inconclusive, the references were absent, and the Google results were not so many. So I nominated it. As it turns out, references have been found, and notability has been asserted. We live and learn. YechielMan 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a US government web site to the external links. Fg2 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (originator of the article)[reply]

- Comment MY MISTAKE! What I thought was a US government site is not. I've corrected the article and I apologize for the error. Fg2 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just about everyone has played this, so it obviously clears WP:N. The fact that it appears on PBS and government websites proves that it clears WP:V as well. --Hyperbole 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks good to me. Jefferson Anderson 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Provided it can be properly refernced and stays referenced, this is quite suitable for Wikipedia. And though it doesn't exactly matter a lot, I too played this (or a variant thereof) in elementary school somewhat frequently. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check)
Weak keep - seems to be the subject of multiple works, and if we have rush goalie in we should have this. Qwghlm 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've played this game, and all the information on the page is correct. However, some more citation is required for it to become a better article. Asics talk 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You could compare this to Dodgeball, to a point, in terms of school popularity. Plus, it has a decent amount of Google hits, so that supports it somewhat. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please just like dodgeball this is notable too yuckfoo 01:53, 17 February 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.