Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big booty


 * 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. Shereth 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Big booty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability for this article is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both sources provided are user editable – meaning that anybody (including the author of this wikipedia article) can edit it, hence it isnt a reliable source. Looks like a game a schoolkid made up. It isnt notable and looks hoaxy. Plus, I wouldn’t advise a google search on this one :D Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Big Booty may very well have been invented by a schoolkid; many games feel this way because they were in fact invented by a kid or are kids' games (though "Big Booty" seems more popular with teens & older). That doesn't mean it isn't notable or that it's a hoax.  Is there another reason why it looks "hoaxy"?  Without specific reasons, I can't rebut, making "Big Booty looks hoaxy" a non-argument. Note that none of my statements in this response support notability directly; acceptable sources are still needed. Kanenas (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree per reasons outlined by User:Fattyjwoods. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is supposed to be an exercise for actors, then there should actually be sources in appropriate books and the like. So much my field that I'm not going to try,though. DGG (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Big Booty is mentioned in any such books; it may be more of a folk tradition, passed orally. If there are no books, then perhaps the specific statement of Big Booty being used as a warm-up exercise isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article (though I don't accede that that would make the game unnotable). Kanenas (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not need articles on every verbal tag game variations there is in this world. Wikipedia is also not a detailed manual on how to exactly play every single game in the world. Big Booty is simply not notable enough to have its own article. Maybe a sub-heading under “Variations” in another existing verbal tag game article, that would be fine. Or a new article called “Verbal Tag Games” would be suitable as well. But I just don’t see the need for a separate article - 2 of the listed sources are illegitimate, the last two are a bit ambiguous as it lists hundreds and hundreds of the most obscure games. The fourth source provided also contains around 72 pages of verbal, acting games – we don’t have 72 articles on verbal tag games – if Big Booty is allowed to keep its article does that mean that 71 more articles on acting games are allowed to be created? Fattyjwoods  Push my button 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the user Kanenas isn't trying to create 72 articles on verbal tag games, only one. I stumbled across this article while specifically trying to search for more information on Big Booty. Aside from that, what's wrong with having numerous articles on verbal tag games? Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a wealth of information available to anyone? While this field might not provide much interest to you, it could be extremely helpful to others looking for ideas regarding verbal tag games, party games, or warm-ups for theatrical productions and theatrical education. Funkiejesuss (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:RS. As Fattyjwoods said, the sources are able to be modified by anyone. Happyme22 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment YouTube has numerous videos of people playing--does that count as a primary source? Kanenas (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem is that youtube is a site where anyone can dump videos on, therefore it isn’t a reliable source. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A handful of videos all with basically the same people surely wouldn't be a good primary source, but in 30 videos posted on different accounts, I counted at least 125 distinct individuals out of 233+ players. Even if the game started as a hoax, by the time that many people were involved, it would be reality (as the criteria for a game not being a hoax is that people play it).Kanenas (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refer to this page for further info. Youtube is just not a reliable source – no matter how many videos of people are shown playing. If you can show videos of people playing on reliable, third-party independent sites than sure. Also if you want you can check out WP:RS for more info if you want. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Not only have I encountered this game as a theater warm-up in the states of Washington, Oregon, and New York, but it is also listed on another webpage describing and detailing various improv and party games. As I'm extremely familiar with this game, I will list this as reference, as well as seek out other references. It is not some "made-up hoaxy school-kid game". It works to establish both collaboration and ensemble when applied to theater, and can also be a great way to reduce tension and stress in a party setting. Funkiejesuss (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Brand new user, just started today. First edit was around 10-15 mins after account creation – at this AfD. A few minutes later the “new” user decides to add some new references to the article in question. Now usually new users are confused at the start and have no idea what is going on – let alone voting at a AfD. I smell a sock in the air. I would file a report at WP:SSP if I wasn’t that lazy. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I admit that I first started my account today, I am not a new user. I have used Wikipedia for some time now, and decided to officially join when I saw disagreement over the validity of this article. I am also computer literate, not a "sock in the air". Check facebook, my man. I know it's not a reliable source, but there are several fan groups devoted to the game. It exists. Funkiejesuss (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:09, 23 June 2008 (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.