Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Find The Pint

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 was delete. No reliable third party sources to confirm notability. WjBscribe 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Find The Pint

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Find The Pint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This non-notable drinking game has been speedily deleted four times in the last month. I list it here in order to allow fair debate on its merits. LittleOldMe 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I don’t see the problem. It seems to be just as notable as some of the other drinking games on here. Cyrus Andiron 'disgusting', 'things made up at school on day', could you perhaps elaborate on these comments, to me they seem to be unnecessary and not at all valid to the deletion of this article. The previous reasons for deletion seem to be due to the fact that the article was not appropriately sourced, but in this case this criteria has been met. I would therefore see it as an appropriate article. Hugsi 18:05, 24 April 2007
Comment Okay, this is what I meant by Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Basically, resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you and/or your friends just thought up. That is what this game sounds like to me. As far as notability is concerned, there is only one source (if you can call it that) in the article. So how do you disagree with my statement that notability is not asserted? According to WP:NOTABILITY A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As there is only one source in the article, it fails that test. Further, the source listed in the article does not meet the reuqirements of WP:RS. Thus, it cannot even be credited as a soruce. Until more reliable sources can be provided, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY --Cyrus Andiron 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please note that the signature was faked. The editor was actually anonymous operating from IP 84.13.243.156. If you are indeed Hugsi then please login and sign correctly. LittleOldMe 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment What about my point regarding the notability of some of the other drinking games on wikipedia. Surely if you feel this article should be deleted, the others should to for the same reason. Also I am unsure what you mean about the fake signiture, I am signed in. Hugsi 18:23, 24 April
Comment Show me some examples, and I'll be glad to comment on them. --Cyrus Andiron 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Postings are signed and date-and-time stamped by using four tildes (~~~~). The out of sequence time on your posting was what alerted me to the fact that you type your signature instead of allowing the system to do it for you. This is regarded as a faked signature. When I checked the history on the page I found that the edits were made when you were not logged in as it shows your IP address, not your user name. As to the points you raise, I have no comment. LittleOldMe 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Truth or Dare?, only has one source. Liar's poker, has none. Goon of Fortune, has been sourced from the same place as this game, Find the Pint. You can take a look at more yourself, there are more examples. I have no comment, so you have no problem with this article? I am still unsure by what you mean regarding the signiture and time, maybe I am doing something wrong? Hugsi 18:39, 24 April 2007 (GMT)
Comment You are welcome to nominate those games for deletion. However, while the games you mentioned may not have many sources, they are all well known. Truth or Dare is an iconic game that has been referenced many times in popular culture. It is well known in the United Sates. Liar's Poker has also been sourced many times in pop culture and is well known. These games are notable in that they have attracted notice by the general population and the media. The same cannot be said for Find The Pint. --Cyrus Andiron 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment So because you do not know about this game because you are not from Northern Ireland it should be deleted?YellowSnowRecords2 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment So would I be correct when I say your point is that you have never heard of this game, and so it could not possibley be a valid article? I have heard of this game before, we play it in Ireland. Although I have never heard of Liar's poker, it would be absured for me to assume that it was not genuine for this reason. Sorry previously I was typing out my signiture and time code by hand, therefore was using my time zone, is it now correct? --Hugsi 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment YellowSnowRecords2 to whom are you referring to? Cyrus Andiron I presume? --Hugsi 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its only been deleted because of people not hearing about it before and just deleting it before even discussing it or considering that it has been talked over in the drinking games discussionYellowSnowRecords2 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment i was referring to Cyrus Andiron not you hugsiYellowSnowRecords2 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The point does not seems in my opion to be valid. The only reason it is being considered for deletion is due to the fact the user that marked it for deletion has never heard of the game. If this was the case for every article on wikipedia then the website would not serve as an encyclopedia of knowledge at all --Hugsi 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment All I'm saying is prove it. I pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by Hugsi. They have been mentioned and played in movies and publications. As far as I can tell, Find The Pint has not. If it is notable, then show me some sources that discuss it. If you can do that, I'd be more than happy to change my vote. It has nothing to do with the fact that I have not heard of it. It has to do with the fact that none of the information has been verified yet. --Cyrus Andiron 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment You pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by me? Where? You linked to a book and an article i used to question your use of invalid sources as a reason for deletion. From what I can see your reasoning could apply to numerous articles on wikipedia.--Hugsi 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here [1] is what I was talking about. I discussed why the other games were notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes I read your comment, and am well aware of its contents. The 'where' refers to the fact that these articles do not validate the point you are trying to make and is merely questioning the fact that you commented "I pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by Hugsi. They have been mentioned and played in movies and publications.". Re-read my previous comment. --Hugsi 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A drinking game celebrated by bar staff is unlikely to be notable (due to the lack of a wide audience). It has no notoriety or fame that I'm aware of, neither is this game readily citable. At best this could be kept in a section on lesser-known drinking games in the main page, with a link to a collection of the lesser known games. Personally I would think this is an invented game of two very bored bar hands. RichyBoy 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - something made up in a pub one night. Completely non-notable. - fchd 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint , thought i should bring awareness to this discussion aswellYellowSnowRecords2 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment This [2] is an example of canvassing. Please Stop. --Cyrus Andiron 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Counter-comment Um, no it isn't. Asking another editor or even a small few, that you already know have been involved in a topic or whom you know well enough to be certain they will be interested, to weigh in on an AfD, and even asking them to take a specific side is not WP:CANVASsing; the scale is much too small, and the result completely nondisruptive. Please do not abuse bad-faith labels like "canvassing" (or other ones like "disruptive", "sockpuppet", "vandal", "wikilawyering", etc. - there are many such terms, and they all have narrow, specific definitions). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Did you even read the discussion? If you did you would have noticed that Bart_Versieck was in this discusion i was making him aware of this discussion but makes no difference as i have realised that he has been blocked. I did not tell him so that he would say keep i asked him to come and give another point of view to the discusion to either add to keeping or deleting the article, he has shown in the past an interest in this article so i felt he would be an apropriate person to give his opinion.YellowSnowRecords2 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Funny, you only mentioned keeping it on his talk page, I don't believe I saw the word delete in your comment. Also, he only showed up to this AFD discussion after you put it on his talk page. --Cyrus Andiron 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment fchd - "something made up in a pub one night". Obviously, how else would a drinking game be made up, not a valid point. However I can see where RichyBoy is coming from, perhaps another section for lesser known drinking games. Although I have heard of it, maybe it is not big in America, or wherever the widest range of wikipedia users are from. It is however a popular game both at partys and in a bar enviorment where I am from, but then how do you determine how well known a game is, and does this apply to other games in the drinking game catergory, for this reason I feel it should just be kept where it is. Cyrus Andiron, I do not see that as a form of canvassing. --Hugsi 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - you determine how notable a game (or any other subject of an article) is, by using reliable sources. As far as I can see, there are none. The site quoted on the page as an external reference does not count, as it is merely a compendium of self-submitted drinking games. This belongs on a personal website, or myspace or something like that, not Wikipedia. Nothing, I repeat nothing, in the discussion at Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint adds anything like a reliable source either. - fchd 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failure to show notability. That you are trying to make it notable is not what Wikipedia is here for - Wikipedia is here for things that are already notable. Prove that it is notable or my vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment If this article is demmend as not notabile, then many other articles in the catergory drinking games should be deleted for failure to show notability as well. Could someone please outline what needs to be done to achieve notability and I would be happy to do it. --Hugsi 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, there probably are. Go to WP:N for notability standards. As for the other articles, if we find them, we bring them here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I believe User:YellowSnowRecords2 is a potential sockpuppet. See here[3] and here [4]. I think he / she is trying to sway the AFD. It is quite odd that Hugsi was the first one on the scene to defend an article written by YellowSnowRecords2 as no communication between the two occurred and Hugsi has not contributed to the article [5]. Also, I find it quite odd that Hugsi made a couple of edits while not logged in,[6], [7], but signed for Hugsi anyway. --Cyrus Andiron 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Cyrus Andiron what are you on about!? --Hugsi 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - sigh, read the posts above. Obtain records of coverage in (multiple) reliable sources. In essence, notability is something confirmed on you by others outside of those directly involved, rather than something you confirm on yourselves. - fchd 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Thankyou fchd we will try and do this, we are also trying to bring attention to a lot of various other drinking games that have the same content references etc as our game but yet have not been considered for deletion,Thankyou P.s Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint was not posted in my above comment as a source it was just to show people of another discusion on the articleYellowSnowRecords2 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment fchd, I know what everyone is saying 'needs' to be done, but it has not been done to the degree you have suggested in other articles, notably some within the drinking games category, perhaps take a look and you will see what I mean for yourself. All I am saying is this article is just as well sourced as others. --Hugsi 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment fchd, I just looked at your user page, you have things that have no sourcing what so ever, Bryan Fogel, so would you be willing to delete them due to notability? This would perhaps help me to see where you are coming from. --Hugsi 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the Bryan Fogel entry on my user page is under a heading of "To Check Notability" - meaning an aide-memoire to myself that when I've got the time, to check the notability of these articles to see whether they merit posting here at AfD. No support of these articles is given or implied. - fchd 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Then why arent they deleted? Can we not be given a certain amount of time to get sources?YellowSnowRecords2 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - they aren't deleted because a) They've not been nominated for deletion, or b) they've been proved to be sufficiently notable to survive. The contents of my user page should have no effect on the outcome of this AfD, and the only reason they're listed there is, as I said, an aide-memoire for me to investigate when I've got more time. Deletion debates usually last for five days, unless they are closed early due to WP:SNOW, but really the sources need to be there BEFORE the article, not the other way around. - fchd 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment We had a discusion on the article and we decided where to put it etc and then it just got deleted! Wikipedia is just all down to Admin's whatever they want to post they can and everyone else gets hasseled by everything they want to post, if we cant post the article here where can we post on wikipedia? Posibly it is not wanted here but i guess that is wikipedias lossYellowSnowRecords2 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not an admin, I've created several dozen articles, and I haven't yet had one deleted. Oh, right: I made sure the subject was notable and sourced at the time I created any.  RGTraynor  20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
YSN2, please see WP:CABAL and be enlightened. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I do not think that sarcasim is needed here if your not going to make a positive remark towards either arguements don't botherYellowSnowRecords2 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you seek an elevated, cordial tone to this discussion, claiming that Wikipedia is a cabal of insiders harassing otherwise innocent folk for "everything they want to post" possibly isn't your best way about doing so.  RGTraynor  20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:V, WP:NFT. Perhaps the two gents fighting so hard to save this article should devote their energies to providing the sources that would save it, rather than in trolling the user pages of other editors to use as debating fodder.  RGTraynor  20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aye, agreed with the above. Totally fails WP:V, WP:NFT, and WP:ATT. --Haemo 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable (and miscapitalised). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've moved it per naming conventions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 26 April 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.