Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunken monkey (card 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   speedy delete as G11 by Athaenara. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Drunken monkey (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previoulsy prodded & prod2. Failes WP:MADEUP, unsourced & I suspect is WP:OR. Author contested prod so throwing to AFD Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Made up nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:MADEUP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI and probably a host of other guidelines. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Madeup nonsense by wacky students.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note from author : I appreciate your concern and full understand that of course, wikipedia just isn't able to accept any new card game which, as previously labelled, "wacky students" come up with. However, i feel i must defend this article's and game's presence on wikipedia.


 * The drunken monkey card game is not simply "nonsense", but instead an entertaining and thoughtfully produced card game, featuring all the makings of a proper game which i can see being played in rooms across the globe.

Only recently, my friends and i checked a wikipedia page which lists a certain number of card games on the site, checking several different articles. Eventually, we found an article of a game which wasn't particularly famous, but was still enjoyable and a hit throughout our college.


 * What this surely shows is that, if a game is good enough, the power of wikipedia has the ability to make it famous and popular and immortalise it amongst the ranks of the famous card games we all know and love. Admittedly, this game may never be regarded as highly as "cheat", "old maid" or "whist", but it's inclusion, and with a little extra help such as links to and from other card game pages, and the website we plan to create later in the year, this game may be found, enjoyed and spread by others around the globe, and if this happens only a small number of times it must surely be considered a success on the part of ourselves and wikipedia.

Wikipedia must have limits, and it must have guidelines, but i am appealing for your leniency just one time so that me and my friends may see the game we so thoroughly created and enjoy so much on the website, if not only for our enjoyment, then the hope that it may one day be as popular as other card games played globally in rooms around the world. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the game is in fact as entertaining and thoughtful it will surely receive enough third-party coverage and media attention to include it in Wikipedia. Until then this game counts just as trivial and Wikipedia is by no means a platform to help anything become famous. We add stuff that is already notable and famous, not the other way round. De728631 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page is completely unsourced, and the subject itself is non-notable; I was unable to find significant independent coverage of this game. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sarcasm intended on the "entertaining and thoughtful" part as well. I may well be swimming against the tide here, but until there is no other option for dispute i feel like i am responsible to argue for the freedom to post articles which other may find interesting on wikipedia. To simply delete this without respecting my opinion seems awfully dictatorial and hieratic. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems like a fairly stubborn response, and to a degree i agree with you. However, "third party coverage" is, as you must surely agree, fairly tough to acquire, especially without something respectful like a wikipedia entry to help the popularity of the game in question.

if i cannot win this argument, i would at least appreciate an apology for your not being able to accept this article on the grounds of guidelines, even if it is just your opinion that it should be deleted. Thankyou for regarding this article so quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) thankyou, and i'd appreciate no-one else post on here and instead just allow the article and this to be deleted in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapharazzo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure anyone is entitled to an apology for Wikipedia's notability guidelines being what they are. They are out there in plain sight for anyone to read, mentioned in the new article creation guides and article creation wizard, and have been available for years before this article was ever created. Not being aware of them doesn't hurt anything, don't get me wrong. But you are unlikely to receive an apology for you having failed to read them and created an article that does not meet them. For what it's worth, I apologize for your frustration, I suppose. Getting used to Wikipedia isn't easy. - Vianello (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like an article about an 'idea made up with your friends yesterday' from the 'Articles you should never make' which I saw here once.Yousou (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MADEUP by page author admission, no history established to prove this game has any widespread acknowledgment. I'm not saying it's a bad game. It may well be fine and fun. But Wikipedia is for things that are already noted widely (relatively, anyway), not an avenue for them to become widely noted. - Vianello (Talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really much else to say here except that I predict snow in the forecast. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * no complaints here (author). I've been around the internet a long time and i know what i'm dealing with. I'd like to thank people who responded well (including the guy the apologized "for my frustration", i appreciate it. To everyone else who seem to stubborn and power-mad to show even slight empathy, i couldn't really care less of your opinion.
 * 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.