Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy Duck (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] Fuzzy Duck

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 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Ducky fuzz? 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 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rules, meet WP:NOT yet again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, provide citation in article, remove final paragraph, which appears to be a wesally, POVvy how-to, and tag with {{Template:Importance}} per badlydrawnjeff. -- Saberwyn 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sheesh. Anyone who hasn't played Fuzzy Duck at least once needs to get out more often. Ducky Fuzz, Duzzy,... etc. -- GWO

KEEP resourceful

• keep please this game is notable enough Yuckfoo 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think we should gather up all the drinking games and put them in List of drinking games, then delete the lot. Just a thought M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is my vote, however. Not resourceful, not notable enough, and completely unencyclopedic. Do we care about drinking games from the 50s? No. Will we care about this game in 2050? No. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on that argument. If a drinking game were referenced in 1950's literature, but the rules not given, where the heck would you go to find out about it? Wikipedia will be a grat resource in 2050 for this sort of thing. Vizjim 13:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep per vizjim Dspserpico 18:43, 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".Apollo 10:44, 9 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.