Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dodgeball variations

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. So Why 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of dodgeball variations[edit]

User:Dendodge/AfDlinks

This seems rather pointless - not to mention unverifiable and non-notable. We'll get every schoolboy and his dog lining up to add their new ideas. We're just opening ourselves up for WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#MADEUP violations here. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --neon white talk 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons above, plus the article has no references so is pretty much pure original research. This will just be a page for everyone to list their own personal variant on dodgeball. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep. The complete lack of any kind of sources in the article is worrying, quite likely a large portion of that list is made up? If any kind of reasonable sources can be later found then please strike out my vote, although the article would still need to be heavily pruned, but otherwise it must be deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep due to childofmidnight, big kudos to him for finding the sources I didn't come across before. Mathmo ^Talk 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are, of course, good sources for this peer reviewed article. The table of contents of The Complete Book About Dodgeball by Andy Keyes http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1420875485/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S00A#reader-link lists 15 or so variations of the game. Variations are also listed by the International Dodgeball Federation rule book (starting on page 34) http://www.dodge-ball.com/site/DodgeBall%20Rule%20Book.pdf and I'm sure other organizations, and other organizations in other countries, also maintain official documentations of variations. So clearly much of the material in this article can be sourced and is not original research. This article was split off from the dodgeball article, and while both need improvements and additional references, deletion is not a good option. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources include YMCA School Playground Partners: Dodgeball Gamges which details the rules and game play of some of the well established variations. http://ecke.ymca.org/docs/playgroundpartners/dodgeballgames.pdf and there's also Dynamite Dodgeball, by Jo Brewer which discusses some of the dodgeball games commonly played. So let's fix this article instead of deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ChildofMidnight provides excellent sources that none of us likely knew existed. The basic suject matter has inspired movies, mad moms and nightmares for uncoordinated children the world over. The fact that this *is* an organized sport surely demonstrates a list is in order. I understand the initial doubts, but sources already existed in the main article this page is subbed off of:
National Dodgeball League, directions for member clubs, and leagues in the United States.
National Amateur Dodgeball Association
National College Dodgeball Association

DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on my previous keep' The more I look at this, the more it makes sense to keep. There are other articles that are subbed from here, everything can be sourced (or removed otherwise) and this IS a real sport. I removed some unneeded tags, including an old merge. This is a textbook example of why WP:DEADLINE exists. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be FULLY sourced and still remain viable, remove all unsourceable information. Mfield (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use this resource on a weekly basis for kids programming! Please keep this!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.171.45 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add the specific sources for each paragraph since the material is apparently being challenged. But we do not require full inline sourcing of an article as a precondition to keeping it.DGG (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant but badly phrased maybe - remove the bits that cannot be sourced and keep the rest, rather than delete it because it can't all be sourced. Mfield (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Unless someone can add those references mentioned, Nom and supporters are irrefutable. Let's hold off on deletion, let editors with access to the sources add them, and clear what we can't source (I will be happy to help with cleaning the article). If this is not done, though, I fear I would have to support a future AfD. Tealwisp (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the crap out of it. I only split it off the main dodgeball article because too many people whined that it belonged. fethers (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you have created this article two years ago if you think it should be deleted? Sincerely puzzled by this. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and verifiability. Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT as stated in the summary. User:ChildofMidnight found sources for 3 of the variants. Give them a passing mention in the main Dodgeball article and get rid of all the vaguely remembered childhood games. -- Intractable (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (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.