Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo (game) (relist nomination)

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 of the debate was Keep. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo (game)

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn. If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. BBC article lists a variation while discussing "Drinking no-no's." With over 250 Amazon.com search results for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although as the article creator I'm not sure what my vote is worth. Can be found online easily in drinking game databases (such as the one linked in the article) and numerous drinking game books I've seen over the years, although I don't own one myself to provide a print source. - dharmabum 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, however Notable and Verifiable, it is a poster child for WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8? This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. An article on Buffalo has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted). However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep and a move to Buffalo (drinking game) Dspserpico 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".
• Keep, I've heard of this game from several sources, and it's beyond any doubt that it exists. I searched for it on Wikipedia to learn more about it's origins, and I found the article interesting, though it would be even better with more background information. The problem with social games of this type, is that it's in their nature to be hard to verify, because they are spread by word of mouth - but that doesn't make them any less real. 83.250.218.159 16:26, 10 May 2006 (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.