Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pub Hide and Seek

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. Awesomeness is not a criteria for keeping an article; WP:V is non negotiable.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pub Hide and Seek

Pub Hide and Seek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not for things made up while getting sloshed in the pub one night. An earlier version of the article[1] detailed the origins of the game in a small town pub. Weregerbil 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as said in the edit summery, as valid as most pub games. Removed most of the editorial bits & left it @ that.--Nate 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. "Wikipedia is not for things made up while getting sloshed in the pub one night" is not an actual section & verging on an insult "Wikipedia is not for things made up in the pub one night" would be more than adequate. --Nate 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. Can you please cite some reliable sources that mention this game and its rules? Unsourced, unverifiable infomation is subject to deletion. If there are other articles on pub games that have the same problem (i.e. those articles are as (in)valid as this one), please feel free to nominate them for deletion. The article on drinking games does have a bunch of stuff that smells... Thanks! Weregerbil 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, I didn't write it, as is the case with many games of this sort documentation is not what its about. If it's going to be deleted it should be on grounds of notability, i.e. is it widely played or is it just own group, which is what WP:NFT is about. Also I was under the impression that WP:ATT applied to claims of facts first other wise a lot of useful & interesting info would be deleted. --Nate 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete contains nothign that is not blindingly obvious from the title. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Either you have a section on Pub/drinking game or you don't. As for most games of this sort there is very little documentary evidence, just the existence of the rules. The game was presumably invented and played and as such the rules of it exist! The article libels no one and contains no factual errors. --Montpelier42 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) User voted twice. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Having an article on drinking games does not mean that every game someone makes up in a drunken stupor automatically becomes encyclopedic gold. Please see WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. A four-year-old can easily invent a dozen games an hour; "presumably existing" is not enough for an encyclopedia article. Weregerbil 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes so should every article on children's games such as Hide and seek be deleted? there is lots of infomation not mentioned in the source. --Nate 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think Hide and seek should be deleted. That game is mentioned in a lot of mainstream sources. It wasn't made up a couple of weeks ago by a small group of bored people. Argumentation by WP:ALLORNOTHING is not helpful. If you have problems with sections of Hide and seek please feel free to discuss the issue in that article's talk page or use maintenance tags (I do not suggest disrupting that article in order to illustrate a point of course.) Weregerbil 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't care one way or the other on this particular game, the point about the almost universal lack of sources for drinking games due to their nature is a problem that needs a general discussion. The main reason I got involved was the phraseology of the nomination, which was derogatory & offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• Keep 'If there are other articles on pub games that have the same problem (i.e. those articles are as (in)valid as this one), please feel free to nominate them for deletion' Damn right and here they are, all with out reference or citation ;Case race, Funneling, Bullshit, Matchbox, Roman Numerals, One Fat Hen, Captain Paf, Caps, Buffalo, Circle of Death, Hi-Lo, Horse Racing, Kings, Up the river, down the river, Kinito, Pounce!, Seven-Eleven Doubles, Tablero da Gucci, The Best Game Ever, Robopound, Land Mine, bouncing coin game, Flip Cup, Kong, Sink the Bismarck, Truth or Dare?, Battleship. Looks like you have a heavy work load a head of you. Or you just accept that the lack of citation is an issue with Drinking Games. I would imagine that they were all thought up 'while getting sloshed in the pub one night' surely that's in the nature of the things!?! Or is there some American bias here I notice that all the ones attributed to Princeton and Harvard are allowed to remain undeleted!--Montpelier42 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'll check on the articles you mentioned. But their existence is no reason to keep this article. -- Ben 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment But surely all drinking games are in the category of 'Here is something that someone just made up' as I have already stated, by there very nature they are made up by drunken people in pubs. You have to consider the value of the whole drinking game article. If you are going to attempt to document or describe a phenomena such as Pub sports you kind of have to accept that they are just made up by people and played. Now that seems to contravene WP:NFT because it fits closely to the description but the sense of that article is more like 'Don't just include stuff that you have just made up to get it on Wikipedia'. My guess is this game was made up and people played it long before Wikipedia or even the world wide web existed and thus is a justifiable. --Montpelier42 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this particular one and keep any that are of actual notability -- and most of the ones that are, will have become so from their adaptation to other environs. I regret the characterization as being necessarily played or invented by the inebriated. Some of these very games will be played better by the relatively sober. This particular game seems invented for the purpose of justifying a pub crawl. Some others probably are, and some are for the purpose of encouraging drinking in one place, and some for more general purposes.DGG 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment DGG's point is a ridiculous argument. Drinking games are not made notable because you can also play them whilst sober! This discussion is really get a faint moral whiff about it. May I remind you all that it is the job of an encyclopedia to describe phenomena not judge them.--Montpelier42 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not attributable, verifiable, no reliable sources, appears to be original research. That's violating almost every policy Wikipedia has, and I may have overlooked some applications of WP:NOT as well. There are some bad arguments above on both sides, but ultimately, this needs evidence that it's a notable topic, documented by those good ol' reliable sources. Change my position to keep if (and only if) evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage by independent third-party reliable sources is provided before the end of AfD. Xtifr _tälk 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This almost looks like WP:HOAX but I'll give the creator benefit of the doubt. Suriel1981 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment Ah well I'm off for a game of Pub Hide and Seek, anyone coming?--Montpelier42 08:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I'm still lost from the last game. Suriel1981 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V (as some may have noticed, I'm not the biggest fan of our many lengthy unsourced (drinking) games articles: this one isn't lenghty, but should still be deleted). Fram 08:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Montpelier 42 makes the only valid point. Remove all drinking games or accept that they are all developed and spread and modified and improved constantly by people in pubs. And the very purpose of them is to get drunk. I've played this game more or less exactly how it's described in the article and a great laugh it was too! And why does DGG think that a pub crawl needs justifying anyway? It is a pub crawl and should definitely be linked to the Pub Crawl page.Sandbed7 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)sandbed7
  • Comment I think I'm missing something here... is Montpelier 42 saying anything other than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? -- Ben 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Random, non-notable drinking game. No sources cited or references given. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just keep itYellowSnowRecords2 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources; no attempt to establish notability. If those can be provided, it could be kept -- maybe as it stands, or as a merge to drinking games, but the material would be keepable. As it is it's unsourced and seems unlikely to get sourced. Mike Christie (talk) 18:14, 5 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.