Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Cricket (2nd 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 was delete. Sr13 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Cricket

Beer Cricket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not a notable drinking game; Wikipedia is not for things made up at college one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unreferenced and a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. Minimal Google results for a search, no apparent reliable sources to verify it either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a place for instructions for how to play a drinking game made up in school one day. —Travis^talk 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the author of this article, I can assure you that this was not a game "made up in school one day." The game really is of New Zealand origin. I would not be too shocked to not find anything on google about a drinking game. Is Wikipedia only a place for the most mainstream of things? Even if the game were, as you say, "something made up in school one day," I cannot think of a modern drinking game not of such origins. The article is written professionally. It chronicles a real game played in real places. The sourcing for other similarly listed drinking games is suspect at best, and in many cases also totally lacking. I see no reason to strike it from the database. Clark P. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I made a cheeky statement earlier, and I meant no offense by it. What I was trying to point out, however, is that Wikipedia articles must have verifiable sources to assert their notability. I am not questioning whether the game is real, but you have provided no sources to back up your text. As for the other drinking games, just because they have articles, it is not automatic justification for another. Please don't take this personally; provide proper sources and your article may be keep-worthy. —Travis^talk 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Let me say that I understand the need for sourcing. Were this article on a person, place, or thing, I would vote to delete as well. It is not, however, on any of those things. It is on a game, and a very fun game at that. Will people searching Wikipedia for new and exciting drinking games benefit from having this article posted? The answer is a resounding yes. I mean, if I went to one of these websites that houses rules for drinking games, posted the rules there, and then sourced that on Wikipedia it would then be keep-worthy? Needless to say, were the article to remain, six months from now it could be predicted that sources would appear of people writing about what a cool game they've played. Clark P.165.219.245.62 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the article has no sources and the author indicates that there aren't any. We need independent sources to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sources. I'm sure Beer pong got deleted when it first appeared, too, but people went to extraordinary lengths to source that silliness, so now we have an article on it. Find sources, restore article. PS: I really, really really, wish people would stop capitalizing game names as if they were proper names. What next? Are we going to eat Dinner, then watch a Movie and pet the Cat? We're supposed to be speaking English here, not German. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP DELETE FOR LACK OF SOURCES????????????????? That makes no sense AT ALL. IF WikiPedia is concerned with validity/verifiability and gasp, SOURCES, they simply become a mirror for anything anybody could go find on Google. Is WP simply a MIRROR for GOOGLE? If so, most of their content immediately becomes non-unique, and thus less interesting. The fact that it does not appear on Google, makes this article PREMIUM. Especially when you're dealing with a localized game from NZ that is especially difficult to communicate and explain. That somebody has finally taken the time to nail down the particulars, even though it does not appear elsewhere on Googleland, should be embraced!!! DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!! p.s. anything anybody links on WP for popular culture is a sham anyways. You think a bogus link adds credibility? 71.191.97.240 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)PK— 71.191.97.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Simply has no notability. --Malcolmxl5 20:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when there are sources that make this notable and make it meet our policy. It currently fails to do this. --Bduke 06:25, 29 July 2007 (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.