Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer-In-Hand (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mairi 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Beer-In-Hand (2nd nomination)


Bump from prod. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 08:42Z 
 * Delete - wikipedia is not for something you made up one day, without sources this falls well into WP:BULL country, no relevant ghits that I can see. I'd suspect that this could easily be speedied with WP:SNOW -- wtfunkymonkey 08:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, non-verifiable, unsourced original research article on a drinking game made up in the pub. Tonywalton | Talk 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Obvious really. --Folantin 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per the above arguments and Wikipedia is not for things made up on St. Patricks Day. One question: Isn't there a no drinking rule when voting given that this passed a previous AfD he he ;) MartinDK 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; WP:NFT is not a criterion for speedy deletion... &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources are provided. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without sources this is just one of a thousand non-notable student drinking games. (aeropagitica) 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources provided to allow a verifiable article to be written. By sources, I mean third-party publications that discuss the game, its creation, and/or its cultural impact, not just a listing of the rules in a drinking game book. -- saberwyn 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per WP:CSD, A1. If it survives SD, then Delete as per WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NFT/WP:OR and WP:DP, row 2, as WP:NEO.  This is a non-article, with no verifiability, and appears to have been made up by college kids recently.  Concur that a vague mention in a list of drinking games (which isn't even cited in the "article" anyway, so of no relevance here) isn't verifiability in any meaningful sense.  Re: above comments &mdash; WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:BULL and WP:SNOW are not actionable, and neither right now is WP:N (it is Disputed).  If you're going to comment for deletion, folks, at least make sure the critieria you choose are meaningful in the AfD/SD context.  :-)  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Nothing wrong with it being listed on Drinking games, but it simply doesn't have enough going for it to be an entire article. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; there was also uncontroverted consensus to remove any mention of "beer-in-hand" from the Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms. This removal was performed quite some time ago, before the Glossary became its own article I believe. That is to say, support for this topic from the billiards corner is non-existent; any support it may have would only be coming from the drinking games or memes perpspectives, and I don't even see any of that. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:40, 27 November 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.