Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Footvolley

:{{la|American Footvolley}} ([{{fullurl:American Footvolley|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Footvolley}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This is probably a hoax and definitely fails WP:V since there is nothing to be found on the web on this emerging sport. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• comment - a quick Google of it does turn up some sites, implying that it is a real sport, but the thing about the 2020 Olympics is undoubtedly false. Besides, it just seems non-notable. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment Please note that Footvolley is a real sport and turns up google hits, whereas a search for "American Footvolley" results in one site only. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to footvolley. This article is a simple fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect/merge - I was unaware that there was already an article for footvolley, but now agree with RHaworth. Any new information can be condensed and put into the Footvolley article- I'm talking like a one-line thing of "A variation on the sport, known as American Footvolley, is played with... etc." --Alinnisawest(talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment I do not think a redirect is appropriate because we are not dealing with a fork but two separate "sports". Footvolley is a mixture of soccer and volleyball, while American Footvolley is supposed to be a mixture of American Football and volleyball. There is no use in redirecting "American Footvolley" to a page dedicate to a sport that is not inherently American. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::Further comment: NO! It's not a sport and thus should not be merged either! It does not meet WP:N, so there is only one correct action. Just because a couple of kids came up with the idea of kicking an American Football-ball (how is this thing called, I'm no American) over a volleyball net it does not have to be mentioned at Wikipedia at all. There is no variation of Footvolley: Footvolley makes sense - but how are you supposed to play a regular game if you have to kick this strangely formed object all the time? Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• comment I have played American Footvolley and I can assure you that it is a sport. If you do not believe me, you should give it a try. It is a very very new sport that was recently created. I have several college friends who also enjoy it. While there may not be much on the internet about it, I do not think this is justification to remove it from Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 11, 2008 — Auchris8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• comment - I had some good college friends play this game in their spare time. I am not sure if it was sanctioned by the university or if it was just a pick-up game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.185.4.67 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — 157.185.4.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete dumb college kids doing dumb college things. JuJube (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• comment - I have played this game with my friends on several occassions. It is not just a "Dumb college thing played by dumb college kids" as JuJube so notes. I think that just because you haven't tried it or haven't heard of it may mean that you need to do more research before jumping to any conclusions. It seems obvious that many users of this site are out of touch with some of younger generations. —Preceding unsigned 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) — Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Gunnar Hendrich is right. The adjective "American" suggests an entirely different game, especially in an alleged hybrid of football. The article is written about a fictional sport. Hoax. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• comment As far as the "per WP:NFT" is concerned, every single sport listed on this website began in the same manner. Someone, somewhere decided to take a ball or some other object and accomplish some goal (no pun intended) with it. At the time, most of their peers undoubtedly thought it was a dumb concept, but look who is laughing now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
• We're laughing. At you. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• comment As far as the comment "Gunnar Hendrich is right. The adjective "American" suggests an entirely different game, especially in an alleged hybrid of football. The article is written about a fictional sport. Hoax." It is an entirely different sport. It has nothing to do with Footvolley and should not be linked to the traditional version of the game. It was in no way modeled after or influenced by Footvolley...it just happens to share part of the name. American Footvolley gets its name from the use of the original ball (a football) and the surface it was played on (a volleyball court) and the fact that it has only been played in America so far (Hence = American Footvolley). Simple concept...really guys! It is just like Frisbee golf for example. You take a frisbee and you create "holes" like you would in golf. There is no golf ball, nor clubs, nor is it played on a golf course. You probably haven't heard of that sport either though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• comment Regarding JuJube's comment: dumb college kids doing dumb college things. JuJube Just because the creators of this game didn't spend every moment of their college lives studying and fitting into some beauricratic mold doesn't mean that this game isn't legit. If we all took JuJube's mentality, innovation wouldn't exist and progress would simply stop. Shame on someone for thinking outside the box here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculous argument that should not be addressed. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• How was it not ridiculous when you brought it up in the first place? Hypocrisy??.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
• Not getting where my hypocrisy lies. The statement that "if everyone was like me we wouldn't have progress" is what I was addressing. What are they teaching at college these days? JuJube (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• keep The original argument is that there were no sources. There is now a link to a website to a Facebook Group page of people who enjoy this game. This is not an official organization, but it does show that it has some merit...albeit weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Facebook does not constitute a reference. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• It should also be noted that {{user|Auchris8}} is the creator of the article and the only contributions of {{user|Ceclipsel}} are to the article and this discussions, and their comments should be discounted as such. JuJube (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• It should also be noted that JuJube has never played this game so their comments should be discounted as such.
• It should also be noted that Facebook (an online community of users) does in fact count as a reference. I will give you that it should not be considered a strong reference, but it is still a reference nonetheless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
• Please stay cool, both of you. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (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.