Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Withnail and I drinking 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 no consensus. Decided to smerge/redirect to Withnail and I -R. fiend 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Withnail and I drinking game

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Rules for a drinking game don't strike me as being particularly encyclopediac. MC MasterChef 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep because wiki is not paper, and there are 49 articles in the drinking game category. The content of this particular one could at least be merged with Withnail and I because the list is a list of drinks he drinks in the movie. Astrokey44 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Withnail and I article already seems to address the existence of a drinking game reasonably effectively to me, is a separate list of necessary? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Withnail and I, add link/mention in Drinking Game. And add Camberwell Carrots to the list. Vizjim 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Cleanup so that, eg....

  • finger of cider (with ice)
  • finger of cider (with ice)
  • finger of cider (with ice)

reads....

  • finger of cider (with ice) x3

.... or similar. Add link to 'See Also' section of Withnail and I. (Don't add Camberwell carrots to the list. Trying to drink a spliff could kill you.) TheMadBaron 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A drinking game like any other. / Peter Isotalo 13:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak merge I agree that a drinking game is OK, as long as its notable. Is this notable? Roodog2k (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notable as an hommage to the amount of drinking that goes on in the film. It's linked already, to Withnail and I, so admins please note if the vote goes 'delete' that'll need cleaning up. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Ok, so I am genuinely unclear: are rules for a game considered valid Wikipedia entries as long as the game is notable? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn drinking game (althought that may be redundant). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real drinking game. Kappa 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. If anyone searches for "Withnail and I drinking game" (which seems somewhat unlikely) they'll surely find the film, and there will be this charming text. -- Mwanner 00:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A real game and the article has useful content that won't fit in the Withnail and I article. --Apyule 01:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've heard of this drinking game and know of the film. But do we really have to list every drink they have? Why not just mention a few lines in the film, if people want try do the game, they watch the film. - Hahnchen 02:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Daveb 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough, very popular at (Ox) Uni apparently (I asked). Alf melmac 10:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, my question: Is notability the revelant criteria for these games (I don't drink personally, so I will defer to others on whether this qualifies as nn or not), or should all these drinking game rules articles (here's another example, which is somehow up for WP:COTW) be deleted (or transwikied to Wikibooks maybe?) on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? I'm not asking rhetorically, I really don't know what the consensus interpretation is. MC MasterChef 10:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep becuase I see no reason to delete and I am not a deletionist Batmanand 23:25, 20 September 2005 (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.