Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle hand game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Circle hand game
This probably needs to go through an AfD discussion sooner rather than later. It has the same problems as The Game (game) before that Dutch language newspaper article was found, and List of school pranks. I know this "game," or more precisely, method of bullying exists, but I believe it is subject to too much specific variation and natural evolution to write a comprehensive encyclopedia article about it. Reducing it to its lowest common denominator (circled fingers, look, punch) may just make for a definition. While I think it should be deleted, it's not a strong delete, and even if I could delete articles on my own, I'd definitely get a consensus first. This will make an interesting precedent, at any rate. Brian G. Crawford 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, although I'm not sure this is the correct name for it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- merge to List of school pranks. Roodog2k 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Rules are too many to merge with List of school pranks. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with List of school pranks. The list of rules is unsourced nonsense. For that matter, I don't see anything specific in this article ever being reliably sourced. I'd say delete if the practice weren't so prevalent. ScottW 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Per JzG, any worthwhile information is already in the pranks article, so Delete. ScottW 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete already in the list of school pranks. "Rules" are essentially made up anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- If this article doesn't have definitive verifiable sources by the time this debate runs its course, I'm in favour of removal. Possibly with a short mention at the List of school pranks page (which it already has) and a redirect there, but an out and out delete won't bother me too much. I don't see this nearly at the same level of notability as The Game. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Not only have I been a player of this game for the last 15 years, upon digging for more sources and citations to post to the page itself I'm finding mention of knowledge dating back to the military in the late 1950's. I will continue to post URL's of sources as well as adding to known rules and variations there of. People complain of there being no citations, but it's not exactly easy to cite something that is only known by word of mouth. There is not a lot of hard evidence, but players of the game tend to always find other players, and it continues to shock me on a daily basis as I find more. I am new as an active editor to Wikipedia so I must also ask for your patience as I attempt to learn the proper procedures as well as structure for my postings. Silent J 22:18, 11 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.
