Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field crumpets (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Field crumpets}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Field crumpets}})

This was apparently played in parks by some college students in 2006-9 but has the feel of wp:madeup. The external links are dead and I have removed them. A search of the web shows some activity in Anchorage in 2011 but the only verifiable report I found has the feel of "well this is a slow news day we need a 3 minute filler - lets look at those funny college kids" Porturology (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:Delete - it looks very much like a HOAX, but at the least it's non-notable web content, let's assume good faith. Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - even if is a hoax, it's not notable, a shame as this is a very well done article. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:MADEUP, not sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please Keep! Whoa, whoa, whoa - this game is NOT a hoax. Please excuse me; I don't know the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it may well be that this page never should have been created, but this is a legitimate game, and it's actually a really good game to play with church youth groups. I attended Cornell University in 2003-2006, which is when the game was introduced there to the Cornell Big Red Marching Band, who still play it today. I brought it back to Montana, and there are still people there who play it. Again, I don't know what would qualify it to be a Wikipedia article, but it does exists and is a really great game for people who like relaxed competition - youth groups, college clubs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.107.104 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Mmm, you sound totally genuine, and you have declared an interest (Wikipedia calls it a WP:COI but that's not a problem). The way Wikipedia works is that we never take anyone's word for anything, at least we try to! What is needed is independent evidence - not your word, not Wikipedia's, but things written by reliable sources not connected with the subject. That means newspaper or magazine reports, really - and sometimes websites, when these are carefully written. So when people speak of "Notable" and "Verifiable", they mean "Can this article's claims be proven by reference to books, newspapers, magazines, quiet reliable websites?" - I do hope you can find such evidence and I'll reverse my vote. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (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.