Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec footy

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rec footy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article from 2006 with no references. How has this existed for so long? This article suggests that Rec Footy is just a variation on the rules of Australian Football, so it would make sense to merge into that article. The recently added sources do not seem to do much for notability, since they mostly are not secondary sources, and therefore are useful for establishing notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something that only existed over 10 years ago isn't that easy to find good refs, but there is a bit there now. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely the standard is whether this subject has had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In this case, it appears not to have had all that much coverage at all. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per added sources. /Julle (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - apart from the Herald Sun article (which I have no access to), the remainder of the sources do not appear to be secondary sources and cannot be used to establish that this subject is notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But question is this is the right project.- dashiellx (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an odd case, because I would imagine that to most people the term "rec footy" would just be a casual term for a recreational league or something similar. Clearly the title needs to be changed. Perhaps to something like "Recreational football (sport)" or "Recreational football (code)" (kind of like Swedish football (code)). If the article is kept, it definitely needs to be moved. Jay eyem (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move as suggested by @Jay eyem:. --dashiellx (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough, but it shouldn't have been tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, User:Perryprog, as that's for Association football (soccer), not Australian rules football (or Canadian football or Gaelic football or Rugby football or similar sports). Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, the one time I do something vaguely sportsball related... there's a reason I generally skip out on this area of Wikipedia—I know nothing about it! I totally assumed those were all the same things. Thank you for the correction! :-) Perryprog (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2021 (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.