Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bong (game)


 * 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.    Sandstein   06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bong (game)

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

Can find no sources to verify the truthfulness of this article. Suspected hoax or game made up by author. DAJF (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a well known game, but one that i found out about from other people, who heared it from other people etc. There may not be sources supporting the truthfulness of the game, but does a game have to have an official website to acctually exist? Scott (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to have an official website, but verifiable third-party references are needed, as laid out in Verifiability. --DAJF (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per the improvement tags on the article. The only reason I didn't list it for speedy delete yesterday was I was trying to give the author a chance to show notability and add references of somesort. The game may exist but, so do wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion many of which this article does not meet. If even one reliable 3rd party source can be found for the game I'll very quickly swap to a merge to Uno variations article of somesort (or any number of extremely similar card games that exist). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am currently in the process of searching for another website describing the game, and i am sure i will find one soon. I would apreciate it if the article was not deleted straight away as i am sure it will be somewhere else. Scott (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is unlikely to be deleted straight away, even if the final decision is for deletion, as the AfD process normally takes about 5 days, so you have some time to search for reliable reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete If you're bored and you have a deck of cards, the human imagination is unlimited when it comes to making up games. In the United States, people in groups of three or more have been playing "bong" for years, but even the mere possession of such parephenalia is illegal.  Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think Bartok (game) is the head article on these types of games, of which there are an immense variety in both names and rules.  Basically, all of these shedding games are variations on Crazy 8s or Uno with baroque rules.  Occasionally, the rules are secret, or devices exist for adding or changing them in the course of play.  Many are drinking games, using the befuddlement caused by drink or drugs to add to the befuddlement of the baroque rules.  There certainly is a rich lode here for folkorists here.  But individual names and variants may not be worthy of articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible action to merge? Scott (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comment previously IF reliable 3rd party sources can be found for this variant I would be willing to support a merge of somesort. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 17 May 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.