Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robopound (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] Robopound

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. -- Saberwyn 10:38, 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 particularly 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 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Redirect to Quarters as per Brian G. Crawford. Vizjim 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, likely listed in the BarMeister's Big Book of Drinking Games as a Quarters variant, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an example of what WP:NOT Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need this if we keep Quarters. Brian G. Crawford 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've read about it in a New Jersey newspaper once.--Plokloon 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any way in which this article is an example of WP:NOT. Furthermore, this topic should not be subsumed by Quarters, as this game has totally distinct (and far more complex) rules than Quarters, though the mechanism of play is the same. Also this page is far more detailed than the Quarters page, and includes external reference links rendering it verifiable, if that's the concern. infix 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep I think this article is too big to be merged with quarters. Dspserpico 18:23, 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 10:49, 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.