Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth pong

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth_pong

Non-notable drinking game Mike _{(T C)} 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7. Pepsidrinka 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that this article meets no criteria for speedy deletion. --AaronS 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Are you serious? This game has been around since at least the 1950s. Other popular games -- beruit, etc. -- sprang from it. It is by no means non-notable. --AaronS 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep you've got to be kidding me Dartmouth pong is the most popular version of drinking pong ever made!!!! Wikipedia sucks.

If you can show its the most popular then it will probably stay, as much as we assume good faith, we need sources. Mike _{(T C)} 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. It's not A7. Please read WP:CSD. Remember, votes not signed do not count. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• My reasoning for labeling it A7 was because A7 reads "unremarkable people or groups." I don't know how literal the CSD is, but I read it, and I feel that an extension to "unremarkable games" would fit well. Regardless, I didn't place a speedy tag on it, and since AfD is a discussion, my grounds for deletion was because it seems "unremarkable." Pepsidrinka 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in the absence of verifiable sources regarding this drinking game's notability and significance. (Currently the only reference is to a student newspaper, not the most reliable source). Sliggy 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The game of beer pong now has sources; but I am not sure that Dartmouth pong is a significant variation on this. Also, the game appears to be called Beirut in the more reliable (read "non-student-newspaper") sources. That said, this is not the place to discuss articles' names etc.. No vote. Sliggy 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reliable source: America's oldest independent college newspaper, as well as the NYT. [1]: "An October 2005 article in The New York Times about the perils of drinking games labeled Dartmouth the founder of pong, "a game also known for some reason as Beirut." While some students were proud to see their school's name in The Times, others were dismayed by the factual error. The New York Times was not the first to attribute the genesis of pong to Dartmouth. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, also attributes pong to the College. It is unclear where the game was first played, some have suggested Dartmouth College in the 1950s, but there has been no definitive date or place," the encyclopedia claims under "beer pong. Unofficial College historian and history professor emeritus Jere Daniell '55 recalls playing pong in its most primitive form when he was a member of Alpha Theta fraternity between 1952 and 1955. I'm not even sure it had a name," Daniell said of playing the game over 50 years ago. He remembered that a point system accompanied the game but said there weren't even ground rules yet." --AaronS 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your article has two things in it I have a problem with, well three now that I think of it. First off the editors note is :"This is the first in a three-part series looking at the evolution of beer pong as a social and cultural phenomenon at Dartmouth.". Its about it on campus, therefore not notable. Secondly, it states "While some students were proud to see their school's name in The Times, others were dismayed by the factual error. " What was the factual error? Also your article uses wikipedia asa a reference, so basically your reference is the wiki itself? Mike _{(T C)} 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you a nit-picky grumpy-wump! I can't explain the terrible editorial process at The Dartmouth, but it does have some clout as a student newspaper. And of course the article is about beer pong at Dartmouth -- where The New York Times claims it internationally stems from. --AaronS 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Mike makes very valid points, that an article about something at Dartmouth can't really consider a Dartmouth newspaper to be a reliable, unbiased source. Yes, it's the oldest college newspaper, but it's still a newspaper that cannot naturally be expected to be unbiased about its own campus. And Wikipedia definitely cannot cite itself, even if it's citing something else that cites Wikipedia. I added a whole bunch of much more independent sources to the article, though. Mike, if you want to take a look at those, and see if they influence your vote? --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, but the main reason for the cite was its nod to the NYT. --AaronS 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read the two NYT articles, and it dosen't mention the actual name Dartmouth Pong, but rather refers to it as Beruit. I'm on the fence, but the NYT is more reliable than the Dartmouth paper, so I have to side with it. Mike _{(T C)} 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pong is known (inter?)nationally as Beruit or 'ruit. The kind of pong from which Beruit sprang comes from Dartmouth. It is simply called "pong" at Dartmouth. Outside of Dartmouth, it is called "Dartmouth pong." --AaronS 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the name of the article is being argued here - I don't think anyone's meant "Dartmouth pong" to be a proper name, but rather just a descriptive name for a specific drinking game. Articles can be renamed without an AfD if that's an issue, anyways. On-campus, students are picky about it being called "pong" and not "Beirut", but that's only on-campus. The notability of the article is that it's the first version of beer pong (see sources in the article), and remains a major part of the Dartmouth College culture. I believe the sources that I added qualify as 'verifiable sources'. There is still certainly an argument to be made as to the notability of the facts, and that's what this AfD should focus on. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The "factual error" that The Dartmouth mentions is that the New York Times doesn't draw the tight distinction between Beirut and beer pong that many Dartmouth students are often extremely picky about. Dartmouth defines Beirut to be without paddles, and beer pong with. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly merge with beer pong as a section. I just added two New York Times sources that I knew about, including quotes from them attributing beer pong's 'legendary beginnings' to Dartmouth. A quick Google search reveals that "Dartmouth College" and "beer pong" seem to be mentioned in a very large number of other college's alcohol guidebooks/standards/etc... I'll see if I can find some more independent sources (also - I know those NYT stories have been re-run in other papers since their original publications). Dartmouth's version of beer pong is a quite unique variant, it deserves at least a section in beer pong. We have articles on other minor drinking games such as I Never, as well as seemingly most board and card games. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I would have a problem with the merger. Dartmouth pong is unique and has very different rules from Beruit. --AaronS 02:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I notice there's also a Beer pong (paddles) article - that could be a potential merge targe if the material is deemed unworthy of its own article. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 04:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - added a whole bunch of external, independent sources --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - With added sources, this could be a great article. Don't kill it just because it needs room to grow. Letoofdune 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. This is not a valid argument. Any article could be a great article with added sources. It is the responsibility of an article's creator to ensure that its signficance is immediately apparent, and verified with reliable sources. Sliggy 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No problems with the article; it seems notable enough. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, given sources. No reason to delete. Stifle 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps create a link within the Beirut article to the Dartmouth pong article for clarity, but the two are distinct and equally important. Nicolasdz 07:31, 6 March 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.