Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doorknob (game)

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, no consensus, regretfully. SushiGeek 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doorknob (game)

Article was speedily deleted thrice, by three different administrators, over Mar 31-Apr 1, holding it to be a joke article. Appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review which overturned the deletion. Listing for your consideration. Regards —Encephalon 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay - if you review this history of this article, you can see that it started out as a generic and short description of the game, which I consider to be acceptible among other articles about "informal" games such as tag, etc. I added considerably to it to make it an April Fool's page, and tagged it as such. Then it disappeared before I had a chance to fix it after April 1st. Then it reappeared, and someone chopped it down to one badly-written sentence. The article is useless right now, I but I would be willing to restore it to a good list of the game's rules, written in a formal tone. However, I don't want to waste my time if it's just going to get deleted. Aguerriero 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another update - I just restored the article and edited it to be formal and encyclopedic. Please review the current version before voting. Aguerriero 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a pretty good example of something real (and probably verifiable), but still simply not an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I encourage everyone to support this article remaining intact, because it documents a legitimate game that many of us played or still play. Aguerriero 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, it's real, but pretty amorphous as well. I agree that it is not encyclopedic. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the VFU. I knew this game well about 8-10 years ago as a Boy Scout. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Ephemeral garbage, no references supporting assertion of widespread play, not in the least degree encyclopedic. WP: Not for things made up in school one day RGTraynor 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added a published reference to the article. I disagree that this constitutes "something made up in school one day". While it probably was at one point, you can find people all over the world who played this game. It is written about in books. I consider it on par with other playground games that have articles, as well as phenomina like Calling shotgun. Aguerriero 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just don't see a reason why not too keep it, especially now that there's a published reference about it posted. I feel like some people here may be mistaking the absurdity of the game for absurdity of the article. There's a lot of references to it not being encyclopaedic, but I'm not really sure what that means? If it's simply a matter of language or style, that can easily be fixed, and shouldn't be a reason to delete. B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Something like this has been around for at least 50 years, although I don't remember anything about doorknobs, and I don't remember it from Boy Scouts. Calling 'safeties' was something junior high boys did while standing around shooting the breeze. I wouldn't have called it a game then, and I won't now. And I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As much as it pains me to say it, this is a widespread 'game' that has existed in some form (and at least some places) for decades. My father and his brothers used to play when they were young. SchrödingersRoot 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not for things that are quite this stupid MLA 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as mentioned in several of the comments here, no one here made up the game, in school or otherwise. B.Mearns^*, KSC 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This definitely fits into not for things, the only reference listed on the page isn't a study or report on childhood games as the example on the NFTs page (freak dancing) is. I think wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this issue hence the three times over speedy deletion. J.reed 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The NFT argument is absurd because it fails every test on the NFT. This is not just a dictionary article; it explains the entire game. This is not for "someone's own purpose"; it is to document a well-known and much-played game. This is verifiable, both by the reference cited and by the number of people from all over the country who have commented here who recognize the game. And finally, this definitely isn't original research. So, do tell: on what ground do you claim the NFT argument, other than that its your personal opinion? The fact that you or others consider the game "childish" or "sophmoric" doesn't mean anything, nor is it a reason to remove something from Wikipedia. There are people out there who would want to read the article either to learn about the game or as a nostalgic reference. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete so its a game that existed. I don't think Wikipedia needs articles on all of the verifiable and yet still insignificant childs games that exist. --Hetar 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's real, and there's ample evidence of that, but I don't believe it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things (see comment above) J.reed 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, the game is sophomoric, but it's also quite common. Appropriate reference is there. There's no reason to delete it. YellowPigNowNow 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate game, appropriately described. Crypticfirefly 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly, pointless game, but Wikipedia is not paper, and it has a verifiable published reference. Powers 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Dlete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We now have a reference for this activity; its relative lack of sophistication is not exceptional among children's games; and, children's games are often a worthy encyclopedic topic. This vote is weak because only one source is given. Xoloz 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please game is legitimate and referenced too Yuckfoo 07:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculously trivial potty humour. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly, but necessary reference is there -- No reason to delete. Jinx has an article and how is this game much different? Doorknob (game) needs its own page because "Jinx" has more than one meaning, and the fact that many of us remember this game from differing parts of the world supports its widespread use at very least. CelticWonder 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) - The preceding comment was made by 68.70.226.128 (talk • contribs), who may have been CelticWonder, but not signed in. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delete this article, and all it needs is a small bit of rewording.Freddie 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Moe ε 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was just talking about this game with a friend today, and decided without knowing about the AfD to check out the article. It certainly could be better. Maxamegalon2000 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete assuming that the information contained in the article appears in the source listed, it's verifiable and should be kept. However, an Amazon search of the book's contents reveals only one reference to the word 'doorknob', and it's not about this game. Therefore, delete unless this or another reference can be verified. Ziggurat 01:21, 13 April 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.