Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Fortyhands


 * 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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Fortyhands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. References included are to a self published source and a book which makes only passing mention of this adolescent prank. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, sort of Obviously I won't sob uncontrollably if this gets deleted but it might actually meet the notability threshold (whatever that means for drinking games). Take for instance this albeit short article in The Stranger which is entirely devoted to the subject or this tasteful account from the Real Detroit Weekly . I think it's reasonable to call that significant coverage in reliable sources although I'll concede that both pieces are more comedy than journalism. The Google News search shows that the term is used though mostly by victims of moral panic. (this presentation of Minneapolis City Council is fun...) This is probably enough according to our fairly lax standards. Pichpich (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * don't delete I'd prefer to merge this into a list of binge drinking games if one existed. But the sources above are enough (if just) for WP:N though I don't think the subject is best served by a standalone article.  Hobit (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment so far we've got 2 !votes to keep the article based on 2 articles in small weekly newspapers and a WP:ILIKEIT vote . Still not the kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG--RadioFan (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree. That the papers are small doesn't prevent them from being used to meet WP:N.  The letter of WP:N is met here.  The spirit is a bit more questionable (coverage is largely humorous and in one case on the short side) which is why I very much prefer a merge. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The key here is significant coverage because, as you note, these small papers are covering this in a humorous light. This article also seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me as well, we dont need an article on every passing fad, especially one that isn't very well known.  Even with mention on the How I Met Your Mother episode, coverage of this is limited to those mentioned above plus a few How I Met Your Mother episode recaps that mention the stunt in passing.--RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RadioFan, please avoid characterizing other people's arguments as ILIKEIT. It's never a particularly good idea to use this kind of shortcut but it's especially ridiculous in the present case. I actually began my little blurb by specifically noting that my level of caring was fairly low and Hobit likewise asked to merge the article into a more substantive one which certainly suggests he's not in love with the current content. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't characterizing your !vote that way and probably shoudn't have characterized Pichpich's that way but still would like to see some more specific and strong arguments for keeping this article. Let's focus on the article and it's merits, shall we?--RadioFan (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep or merge There seems to be little reliable coverage for this, but then again it does actually appear to be a relatively widespread practice. A few more sources would be nice, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. A merger to a list of drinking games would be the best option I think. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Never commented before, sorry if I do something wrong, but this article was exactly what I was looking for in terms of information for a party, and interesting to boot. I understand if it doesn't meet any other criteria of any sort for retention, but it was useful for me at least.  thanks for considering.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.80.160 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I never commented before as well, but I agree with the post above me. This article was actually useful, which should be a goal of Wikipedia.
 * Comment' Actually WP:USEFUL is not a goal of Wikipedia and is generally considered an insufficient argument for retaining an article.--RadioFan (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RadioFan, you really have to stop WP:LINKINGTOSTUFFINCAPS especially when it's misleading. Put yourself in that newbie's shoes. He's certainly surprised to learn (as I was) that usefulness is not an objective of Wikipedia and when he follows the link to see what that's all about he'll read examples about phone directories and travel guides (which are clearly irrelevant and not even close to what he meant) followed by the sentence "An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." That's not to say that the two ip editors above bring much to the discussion but there's no need to hammer them with a link to a half-relevant section of an essay that you're kinda quoting wrong. Perhaps we can take their input as solidifying the argument for the keep and merge solution suggested by Hobit. Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a guidebook of drinking games, though that would be useful as well.--RadioFan (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's talking about a guidebook? The proposal is to create a list which is very different as I'm sure you realize. List of museums in Paris is not a travel guide, List of Microïds games is not a game guide. Pichpich (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2011 (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.