Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game Of Drink

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 was Game Over. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game Of Drink

The Game Of Drink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable drinking game, Google results are not convincing Quarma 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day. We already have Drinking game. (aeropagitica) 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT. Don't forget to delete The game of Drink too! Demiurge 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is a game that has been in existence for 8 years that has members in four states from washington to north carolina. Don't delete this information. This is a legitimate game that deserves a chance to be delivered to the world. It is not a game that was "made up in college one day". Give it a chance to catch on. Don't be a hater please. I am working on updating the content to provide a more in-depth definition of the gameplay as well as the sub-culture that has sprung up around it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roxxstar (talk • contribs).
  • Comment If you want the article kept, it needs to be verifiable, which means you need to supply us with some reliable, notable sources for the information it contains. Demiurge 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Correction: Sources do not have to be notable, just reliable and non-trivial (and even the latter requirement comes from a guideline that is presently Disputed.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for things that "deserve to be delivered to the world", it's a place for information that is already out there. That's why you need verifiable sources. --Grace 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How can i provide reliable verifiable information on the game when it has never been published or documented in any type of media outlet? That is what i am trying to start. The only thing that i could do would be to provide names and telephone numbers of literally hundreds of people, who are in the game, that could verify its existence. Other than that i am not sure what else i could provide. But i do think that, in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about, this content should be allowed. This game is certainly as valid as some of the other drinking games that are listed under your drinking games link.

Might I suggest taking your content to Blogger?, Livejournal or Myspace? Seems like that is what you're looking for. Mister.Manticore 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --Grace 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please see also The game of Drink. Can that be deleted as a result of this same discussion? --Grace 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably not, but I'll put in the AfD. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, with a caveat to Roxxstar that Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a means of marketing something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No verifiability = no article. --Folantin 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this article is total balls, and, what is worse, the balls are made of crystal. Moreschi 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• The game of delete Danny Lilithborne 11:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - AfD for The game of Drink is present here. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Now if I'd actually consisently sign my own stuff.... --Dennisthe2 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "Non-notable" has recently come under attack as a criterion for deletion. 70.101.147.74 03:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "under attack" is quite the right term for this - rather, it seems that the question of what constitutes notability is in discussion. Nonetheless, at this time, the discussion bears none on this discussion - let that one happen, and this one will happen, and if it can be justified to keep the article, we keep it. Currently, I see no justification. My vote stands. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's far more under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability than "what constitutes notability". But I agree with you otherwise; WP:NN whether it is an actionable guideline or not right now is of no relevance since WP:V trumps it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for WP:V; principal author of article says article cannot be verified. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to Roxxstar: If it's verifiable some day with third party sources, I strongly, strongly suggest putting it under Drinking game in a "Game variations" subsection or the like, or it will probably get merged into there by someone else anyway. There isn't anything special about this variant of drinking game to warrant an entire article. See WP:VANITY. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Why are we wasting time voting? -- Zanimum 18:52, 25 November 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.