Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger Circle Punch 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Finger Circle Punch Game
AfDs for this article: 


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

No reliable sources (I have looked) to establish notability, simply being mentioned in a Mike Myers movie is not enough. kelapstick (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Complete lack of notability other than in the fiction of the film. We need a new CSD for "fictional games I want to share with everyone which I think are funny and but are really not". §FreeRangeFrog 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable or non-existent game &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article appears to be simply a description of the rules of the game, violating WP:NOTGUIDE. Also borders on WP:NFT violation. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Kuyabribri. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Punch Buggy" got by with a lot less than what I have put forth here. That was mentioned in The Simpsons, so that's acceptable for wikipedia? This is a real game, no different than Beer Pong, Punch Buggy, paper football, etc. Not sure what is needed to prove that. "Games made up in one day"? Find me a game that wasn't invented in one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munch606 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Punch Buggy actually has reliable sources cited as references.--kelapstick (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentNot sure what you're looking for as sources. How about this?
 * http://www.circlegame.org/
 * http://www.fox.com/malcolm/journal/206.htm
 * .--User:munch606
 * The first is a WWW site whose author is not identified, and so whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. (How does the world know that that WWW site is the truth?  It's not as if there's never been a joke WWW site full of false information before.)  The second is a work of fiction and not documentation of the factual world in any form.  Fiction is not fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (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.