Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foot hockey


 * 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   no consensus. There are many comments here that are off topic and/or offer no argument with a basis in WP policy, instead appealing to emotions or making unverifiable claims about phantom sources. Some sources have been found, the article has been improved somewhat, but there is doubt as to the value of those sources. We've got self-identified "weak" arguments from both sides. I can't see any consensus for any particular course of action here. By the way, I haven't really looked into it, but this "boot hockey" sounds very similar to Broomball, maybe a redirect is in order... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Foot hockey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:VERIFY. Probably original research. Llama&#39;s Koala (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also fails the WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - I've verified it exists and there are a few sources online, but nothing significant, and nothing at all before 2002 or in 2012. I wouldn't salt it, because it could catch on, as did touch football. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Foot hockey (also known as Boot hockey) is extremely popular in Canada. It is played in about every school yard in Canada and has been for decades. Touch football would be a perfect example of what it is like in terms of popularity. Definitely not a crystal issue, but will take some searching for sources. Not a source towards notability clearly but an example that it is a very old game here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I've PRODded this in the past, and my rationale then still holds; it may be popular (in Canadian schools, at least) but there aren't enough reliable sources that have been written about it, leastways not that I could find. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC) downgraded to a weak !vote per new sources in article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Big problem is that it goes by a few names. The other common one (probably the most common one) is "Boot Hockey" which yields a few more pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Boot hockey appears to be a different game; according to at least one source (p.364), boot hockey is played with sticks and a puck, rather than with the feet and a tennis ball. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel really sad when I see such comments (the one made by  Yunshui above) in a deletion discussion about an article that has been around Wikipedia since 2006 and has had well over a hundred different wikipedians contribute to it. The article was started  by a Wikipedian who made 12 contributions to it between 2006 and 2008. Since then hundeds of  others have made small  contributions, but seems like no one took "ownership", a concept that is frowned upon at wikipedia, but unfortunately  necessary  to keep an article alive. See contributions


 * I am sad, even though this is not a topic that I care about or have contributed to. I am sad because so many others will be disappointed. I am sad because this article is only the tip of the iceberg, tens of thousands of other articles at Wikipedia are sure to follow into this black hole.


 * As I said this particular topic holds no interest for me personally, but there are hundreds more that do, none of which will stand up to the scrutiny of the deletionists who seem to have taken control of all the AFD discussions here. These deletionists spend their wiki-time lawyering almost exclusively in these deletion discussions and their only contributions are their DELETE votes together with a set of nicely mastered wiki-acronyms that only wiki-lawyers are familiar with. Ihave yet to see these people actually contribute anything to the articles they are  voting to DELETE.


 * Countries such as Canada will be the sure losers of this wiki-deletion movement, because the press in Canada is not in the business of providing free access to knowledge. Few articles survive on the web in Canada once the topic becomes less news-worthy, and with the way copyrights law is nowadays, most information becomes unavailable in very short order after publication. As a result it is not that easy to find reliable secondary sources to support articles.


 * Sorry to intrude on this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If it makes you sad, there's an easy way to make yourself happy again: find some reliable sources and cite them in the article. That's a surefire way to get any nomination based on notability grounds overturned. Personally I'm happy to change my !vote in the event of sources coming to light, and I believe any other Wikipedian would be as well. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True I could spend hours educating myself on a topic I know nothing about, and have no interest in. However, I suspect this will not help anyone since this article seems to be doomed. If, on the other hand, I could figure out how Gene93k (who seems to be the only wikipedian providing this great service) sends notices to wikiprojects to alert them of deletions I would send a notice to WikiProject Canada... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did it for you. For future reference, go to the appropriate WikiProject's deletion discussion page and follow the instructions there. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've found a few resources that mention foot hockey, though in passing instead of as the theme for the respective resource. Comprehensive school health : an ethnographic case study (page 83 of linked PDF, numbered 75 in doc), The Atlanta Thrashers hold a Foot Hockey Camp at the Andrew and Walter Young YMCA at examiner (on spam blacklist), The social dimensions of learning disabilities: essays in honor of Tanis Bryan (page 196). Mind  matrix  21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is another sport, similar to this one, that is sometimes referred to as foot hockey or Manipuri hockey. It is played in the Indian state of Manipur, and is usually referred to as Kangjei ("cane stick"), with variants known as Mukna Kangjei or Khong Kangjei. (See Manipur for more details.) The origins for this game are distinct from Canadian foot hockey, but because of the similarities in the game it may warrant mention in foot hockey, or at the very least a hatnote or "see also" mention. Sources for this game include: Khong Kangjei ( Hockey on Foot ), Khong Kangjei at indianet (on spam blacklist), Khong Kangjei (Manipuri Hockey), Khong Kangjei Hockey on Foot, Kangjei (used as a metaphor - see last two paragraphs of article), Manipur, past and present (page 185), and several photos of the game: pic1, pic2. Mind  matrix  21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added two anecdotes from books published by Brian McFarlane and Sally Manning. Mind  matrix  21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst I'm deeply impressed by Mindmatrix' research, regrettably I still don't see anything in the sources provided that meets the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. (It was fascinating to learn about the Indian equivalent, though.) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There's another Google Books reference in Breaking the Ice: The Black Experience in Professional Hockey by Cecil Harris: it's described as "more like a form of soccer with a tennis ball", and a player's transition from street to ice is described. Note that it shouldn't be confused with khong kongjei/Manipuri hockey/"hockey on foot" which is like polo without the horses but still with the mallets. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added that source as a reference yesterday, but to cite that Anson Carter's introduction to hockey was via foot hockey. I can't access the Google Books archive for that page of the book - can you provide more context? Regarding Manipuri hockey, I was just noting that it is similar to and sometimes referred to as foot hockey; I don't think it deserves anything more than tangential mention or disambiguation in this article. Mind  matrix  22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a real thing, as clicking on the Google news archive search results does show. Look!  There is even a picture of some kids playing it in one news article.  I see one result which is unfortunately hidden behind a paywall.
 * SUNRISE DEBUTS NEW 3-RINK HOCKEY COMPLEX Pay-Per-View - South Florida Sun - Sentinel - Sep 15, 2002 The Foot Hockey program is designed for youngsters with no skating experience. ... The registration cost for the Foot Hockey and Roller Hockey programs is ... 
 * They even have places built for foot hockey to be played.  D r e a m Focus  20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It exists. Your point is? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article does have multiple reliable sources and therefore does meet WP:GNG. Stedrick (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Adair article looks like significant coverage, but the other sources (which are definitely reliable, I'm with you there) are passing mentions. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources, not one significant source and a host of passing mentions. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm starting to believe that sources probably exist, even if they haven't been found; the Adair article is proof that the subject is written about. I've downgraded my !vote to a weak delete, and will strike it altogether if I find another source which provides decent coverage. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is unverifiable and cannot be justified under GNG. I have made a diligent effort to locate significant mentions in reliable sources – but with no success. The term “foot hockey” appears to be a colloquial term used to refer to any sort of game played (usually by school children) which involves kicking something - usually a ball - into a hockey net. There does not appear to be any official rules, or even any unofficial rules, which can be used to define this game further. The comment made that “sources probably exist, even if they haven't been found” cannot be taken seriously. If the sources exist then produce them, otherwise it must be assumed that they do not exist. Those sources that have been found are not significant (i.e. passing mentions only) and are not from reliable sources. Git2010 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * it seems to be like kick the can, another very popular kids' game in some parts of the world. See, e.g.,  ("a popular Canadian schoolyard game in which two teams of players kick a ball (usually a tennis ball) in an attempt to score on the other team’s net.").--Milowent • hasspoken  19:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've expanded the article even further, with refs regarding rules, variants, and safety, and referenced anecdotes about childhood play from future NHL players, NFL players, and a US politician. Please inspect the article again, and possibly re-evaluate your !votes. (The article still needs cleanup though.)  Mind  matrix  02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sweet sassy molassey, Mindmatrix's work helped me finally opine here.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The effort is appreciated, but I can't see any of these new sources providing anything beyond passing coverage. Many are just mentions of "foot hockey", without any attempt to define the term or even give it context, and a number are about "boot hockey", which, at least as they discuss it, is a different game to that described in the article (played on ice, and involving sticks). (Incidentally, there's enough here to convince me that an article on Boot hockey, as described by Tator and Timberland, is warranted). Most of these are things I found on Gbooks whilst doing a WP:BEFORE check; given their minimal coverage, this smacks of WP:OVERCITE.Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many sources (whether citeable or not) seem to describe boot hockey as not having sticks..--Milowent • hasspoken 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:IAR, WP:BUILD. AIUI most of the keep !voters have been seeking out reliable sources to include here. The fact that they've not yet been found by people here does not necessarily mean that the game isn't notable and documented somewhere. I've probably added all the refs I can, without access to the library of a specialist sports college or similar. Original research is not a reason for deletion: cleanup is the way forward.
 * Does this have to be repeated for Shinny too? Where is a researcher of traditional children's games to start, if not Wikipedia? Merging all the non-notable games into that article would be undue. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep it has a lot of references proving some notability, but the topic itself does not seem particular notable. However overall, I would say the references are enough to keep it. JDDJS (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (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.