Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubbies


 * 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. Really only editor argues that there is sufficient in-depth sourcing, but there is no consensus (at all) that this is indeed so. Arguments along the lines of "we know it exists but it just hasn't been written about in depth" go to the heart of what GNG requires, but misses the central point of significant discussion, which excludes brief mentions. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cubbies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This informal school playground version of football certainly exists as a concept (I remember playing it at junior school back in the 80s) but it has never been the subject of any coverage by reliable sources and is therefore not notable (impressively, the article seems to have existed without any references at all for over 10 years). I briefly considered merging to Glossary of association football terms, but the countless alternate names for the game would render this pretty much impossible (not to mention the total lack of reliable sources to back it up), so deletion is probably best ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is no more than a neologism, with very few reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - no indication of notability. GiantSnowman 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Universally-known form of playground football, clearly notable. I have added numerous references to the article.  Number   5  7  18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see the offline sources, but the online ones contain only the most cursory mentions of the game, for example the only mention in the Danny Webber article is "As a boy, he grew up playing ‘Wembley doubles’ with his friends in the street, dreaming of the day he would play for club or country at the most iconic stadium of all." There's not even anything to indicate what the game actually is............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see the entry in the Football Book here. Here's the explanation in the Imlach book. I'm sure there is more coverage out there, but because "Wembley" (which seems to be the most common term) is widely used for other things, it's quite difficult to identify sources. I did find a relatively detailed explanation of the rules in a fictional novel, but I don't think that would be allowed as a source (although it does help show how well known it is). Number   5  7  08:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, references have been added, but these are just references highlighting mentions of the game by name or variants thereof. I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the game itself. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the two references directly above? They are not mentions of the game, but an explanation of what it is. Number   5  7  13:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked them. However, having had a read, the first one is a 29-word writeup outlining the game in a side box adjacent to a section on street football in general and the second is at best a paragraph on the version of the game, which does little but explain what it is. I don't think either of them are significant enough to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling to understand how other editors believe something that most people who have played football will have played at some time or other does not pass GNG – this is not a game specific to a single school (like the Eton wall game or the Eton field game) but something that is played almost everywhere under different names. Number   5  7  14:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't matter whether we've all played it, it doesn't matter what you or I know about the version of the game, that is just indicates it exists. What matters is has the variant received significant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. I don't see anything presented that goes beyond a brief outline of what the game is. To compare to either of the Eton specific games is erroneous. It is their idiosyncrasies which has led to significant coverage outside of primary (i.e. Eton-related) sources. The fact that Cubbies has no clear rule structure, bar the presence of people and a ball makes it much less likely to pass GNG because it is so vague a construct. There is little more to cubbies than just Random kickabout in the park but we don't have that as an article because it just to vague. The fact that it would be almost impossible to pin down a name for this variant is another major alarm bell, that this is simply to nebulous (or at best to freeform) a variant to pin down via GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But there are quite clear rules, with a few variations, as outlined in the article. Number   5  7  14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, there's no hard and fast rule on the number of players, whether its individuals or teams, the length of a game, the number goals to progress. Is headers and volleys a separate game or not? Do you progress to the next round if you score x goals, or do you go in goal yourself? I don't think that the one source you have cited for the "rules" can be used to state bojectively that "these are the rules that are followed in general whenever this game is played. The format section of the article kind of highlights this. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes really: The number of players and goals required are the variations mentioned. The game is not timed, so there isn't a length. If you've scored enough goals, you sit out until the next round ("once a player scores, they sit out the rest of that round"). These are all quite clearly stated in the article. Number   5  7  15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really not. Who says you have to score once or twice? How many on team? How many players in total? how long is a game? This is simply not stated clearly in the article, and I fear the reason for this is that it is not stated clearly anywhere. any number of people can play this game for any length of time in any configuration for as many goals as they want. There is no getting away from that fact that this is a name for a glorified kickabout. Regardless of the point of the rules, where is the significant coverage of the game itself such as its wider popularity, its impact on football in general, etc? Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only conclude that you haven't actually read the article. Who says you have to score once or twice? "pre-determined number of goals"; How many on team? "players playing individually or in pairs". how long is a game? "The player failing to score in each round is eliminated until there is a winner." If you want an article on a football variation with no rules, see medieval football. Number   5  7  21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's agree to disagree on this, we obviously have very different views about what constitutes vagueness. It's not really the issue though as I have asked several times, where is the significant coverage of the variant? All this article shows is that the game exists, and basically you can have as many people playing for however long you want. Where is the coverage of the impact of this variant? Where is the coverage of how it has influenced the wider game of football? Where is the coverage of any attempt to organise this variant into a level of competition elevating it above an informal kickabout? I just don't see anything approaching that in the article. Fenix down (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fenix the rules are quite specific. There can be any number of players. Play continues, with players being eliminated one by one until there is one winner. Those are specific rules. Notability does not depend on this game having an impact on the senior game nor on the existence of a formal competition. It has a fixed set of rules that are widely used in informal kickabouts. That is enough. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Number please add the reference in the novel that you found - put it in a "In popular culture" section. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - given that sources have been found that prove that the game exists and give a very brief outline of what it is (the crucial element missing from what I'd found), is there an article to which a brief description could be merged (I still don't think it merits its own article)? I found Variants of association football, but that consists solely of a wikilinkfarm (or whatever the correct term is) to standalone articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe here? I'm not sure though, but it does have a link to futsal, so why not to other variants? I'm happy with a merge if that's the consensus. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I would now be happy to support merging a small amount of reliably sourced content into Glossary of association football terms. As far as I can see this would have to be under the cubbies/cuppies names, as those are the only names which reliable sources specifically attach to this game.  The sources in the article for names like "knockout Wembley" are only to pieces which drop the names but don't actually define them, thus we can't reliably source that they relate to the same game and it is OR to assume they do..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never heard of this, but the article gives a pretty good picture of what it's all about. The references do show that it is recognized, at least. The article is not up to WP ideal standards but I don't think there's anything bad about it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This argument seems to be little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Are you able to provide any sources that discuss the game beyond a basic explanation of rules that would show significant coverage per GNG? Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sources that show it exists and is widely known. That is enough to make it notable. It is not something someone made up yesterday. It appears to be true that respectable sources have not paid a lot of attention to this and normally this is, I agree, reason enough to delete an article but I think that including this article does make wikipedia a better encyclopedia so I think it should be kept under WP:IAR. Lets start creating some common outcomes for widespread childrens games. filceolaire (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm confused by what you are saying, first you use WP:ITEXISTS as an argument for keeping, then explicitly state that there is not very much on the subject in reliable sources. Can you explain how IAR should be used to ignore GNG. I think this sets a worrying precedent. I do not doubt the game exists and have played it myself. What I do doubt is what you note, that there simply are not the sources out there that discuss this variant of football in any real detail. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fenix down I don't just claim it exists; I claim that it is widespread over the world and is played as widely as association football. Being played all over makes it notable even if it doesn't meet GNG. Documenting popular children's games which have been neglected by 'reliable sources' is, I believe, something that will serve wikipedia's readers and make the encyclopedia better and so we should IAR and do it.
 * On the other hand List of traditional children's games does list a large number of articles about children's games which do seem to pass GNG with little more in the way of sources than those which have now been added to this article. I believe that with these added sources the article can now pass GNG. filceolaire (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (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.