Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing coins

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 keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing coins

Bouncing coins was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing coins (relist nomination).

This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Public health hazard. I am all for the sport of drinking, but while they were inventing this game, did the thought occur that drinking out of a community glass and tossing filthy coins into it that have bounced off an equally filthy bar table could spread some diseases? --Xrblsnggt 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a silly idea to have thought it was notable enough for wikipedia in the first place Viridae^Talk 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a silly renomination. It was consensus keep, it was verifiable before (s "bounce 'em") and still is. The AfDs were done individiually, and nearly all kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three, the blame for this remonimation lies squarely with the editor who not only didn't cite the source in the article the last time this came to AFD, hasn't done so this time either. The prior AFD discussion wasn't in the usual place, and wasn't linked to from the notice on the article's talk page. Please learn to cite sources. Citing sources is the way to avoid AFD, and a complaint that articles come to AFD when one has failed to cite any sources and no sources can be found (without knowing a different name for the subject that isn't even mentioned in the article) doesn't really have much foundation, especially when it has happened once already. Uncle G 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually it happens. Considering that I spent two hours voting in 30-something drinking game AfDs the last time it came around, I'm not shocked that a few missed the boat. While articles should be cited if need be, the large amount of nominations also asks the question as to whether any effort to verify was made by the nominee, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • ("Nominator", not "nominee".) There have only been four nominations of drinking games in this group, and Daniel Case has made it clear that xe has tried to find sources on these games under the (only) names given in their articles. Uncle G 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Only four this time, yes, thankfully. I'll keep my mouth shut concerning the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because you dislike something, or consider it dangerous, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. --Gau 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While pertinent, that comment is not a reason to keep. Do you have one? Daniel Case 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What possible relevance is there to a discussion of whether to delete an article that someone thinks it is a public health hazard? Isn't that opinion itself OR? Is that a basis for having no mention in Wikipedia of say promiscuity or the eating of raw fish in Sushi, since those might also spread disease? You should only post Keep or Delete based on valid criteria. Is the article OR? POV? about something Notable? Does it have Verifiable Sources? Edison 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced and it is the editor's responsibility to source. I gather there is a book reference - has the text been checked against the book for possible copyvio? As it stands it is OR. BlueValour 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the book doesn't list it under this name - and the article should be moved there - it doesn't appear to, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BlueValour, not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page, though it might make sense to merge it with Quarters -- Trnj2000 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - what is absolutely wrong with this page is that it breaches WP policy by being totally unsourced. BlueValour 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}. Sources have been presented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The sources need to be included in the article so any reader can verify the contents. If, you have been presented with the sources, why not include them? BlueValour 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was planning to after the AfD concluded. If it's bothering you right now, it can't hurt to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 14 August 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.