Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny rugby

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

How-to like, almost covered by made up in a day. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is poorly cite, no even one ex link.--Freeway8 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not even one reliable source on the article. Schuym1 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note a previous AfD was held when the article was titled "Penny Football": Discussion resulted in 'keep'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScot (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you could keep an article so easily via WP:ITSNOTABLE back then compared to now. MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as WP:MADEUPthings with no sourcibility per search that finds no reliable sources or verifcations. Note that a search for "Penny Football" does find sources... while "Penny rugby" does not.
• Delete, but not speedy as MADEUP isn't good enough for speedying except for blatant hoaxes. Still, there's nothing that proves its notability etc. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Nyttend; unreferenced. It's certainly not MADEUP but it's close enough that AfD is the right deletion move. --tennisman 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced, but this isn't made up by the contributor; essentially the same game was taught to me in school in north-east England in the 1980s, so it's more than 20 years old (probably significantly older). If sources are found I'd be inclined to keep (surely someone has documented this, somewhere?) but without them, it can go until someone gets some real sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:51, 21 October 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.