Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disassociation/Association (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) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disassociation/Association

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 10:57, 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. And nominating all at once means I have to do this boring cut-and-paste job over, and over, and over again. Vizjim 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that you are cutting and pasting again and again suggests that you have very little to offer in these discussions except an objection based on process. Brian G. Crawford 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My objection is, yes, based mainly on process, as I think is clear from the above. There are lots of separate nominations, made on the same day, to which I have the same objection, hence the cut-and-paste. This is why first of all trying to clean up the articles (if the objection is actually based, as it say it is, on lack of verifiable sources), then listing ONE of them for deletion, would have produced a fairer result. As it is, this looks suspiciously like trying to get the desired result by flooding AfD. Vizjim 10:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, variation on Drink While You Think, which was mentioned in a BBC article and likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games. With 250+ Amazon listings for drinking games... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability and verifiability are not all that's required; see WP:NOT Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 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 this drinking game 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 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability, no evidence that this has anything to do with Drink while you think. Brian G. Crawford 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So why do you vote delete before reading articles? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking purely at the article, I have to agree with Brian. The article does not say that is a variant of DWYT, the article says that the time limit rule may be borrowed from DWYT. -- Saberwyn 21:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Then fix the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Would you kindly suggest how I can fix the article to demonstrate notability, when a Google search for ["Disassociation/Association" drinking -wikipedia] comes up with 9 total results, six of which are copied from Wikipedia articles where the game is wikilinked. The other three mention an "oxygen disassociation/association curve" (2 results, the context doesn't sound much like a drinking game), and the other mentions homeopatich remedies. I have no sources by which to improve the article. And, if I have access to no sources, how am I supposed to say if the optional inclusion of a certain rule is a borrowing from another game, or makes this a subtype of the aforementioned other game? -- Saberwyn 10:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge with Drink while you think. -- GWO
• keep ot merge per GWO. Dspserpico 18:39, 8 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.