Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggey


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Boggey

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable sport, probably one day kinda thing, can't find any mention of it anywhere else. Jac 16888 Talk 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for the sheer joy of the name. File under WP:IAR. X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Can not find any indication this is a notable game, and can't figure out how ignoring that it is not notable and retaining this article will make wikipedia better. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look kid, if you can't see how having an article entitled "Boggey" will promote exuberance, intellectual rigour, vitality and a shiny coat amongst the WP rank-and-file, then I pity you. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This game is something that may be played at hockey fields around the world. Only new thing is that we named it. Look at the hockey page on wikipedia and the 'Other forms of hockey'. It lists things not a lot of people have heard about. Purpose of this article is to show that this is a variant played, with an indication of how it can be played. Both to show people an alternative AND to show people already playing that it is played at other places as well... Give it a chance I would say... User:DvB 18:00, 21 February 2009 (GMT + 1)
 * Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I quote "It started as a way of ending a regular hockey training or, when only a few people turned up at a training, as an alternative way of training.". No source, no notability, no point. And I don't want a shiny coat (or cold nose...) Peridon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources and very questionable notability. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign!) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sound references can be added within the AfD period. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence for notability. (and I note the extremely dubious keep arguments, characteristic for something that is essentially nonexistent) DGG (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as Hoax/Pure Vandalism--DFS454 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (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.