Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi-Lo (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. --Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi-Lo
One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete drunkcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider this my delete vote for all of the articles nominated together. There was no reason to split them up, as voting 40 times is considerably more hassle than verifying 40 links, most of which are visibly identifiable as "drunkcruft". — GT 09:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Damned if you do it one way, damned if you do it the other... Who knows, there may be some salvegeable games in this list. -- Saberwyn 10:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rumble looks to me like the only one that didn't belong as it's not really even a drinking game. So amend my last statement to exclude that. — GT 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why its being relisted individually, because people would start voting "Delete all, but keep x, y, and z, no vote on a or b, and redirect..." -- Saberwyn 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * with group nominations, it would be better to list one, then wait till the decision is over, before nominating the others. But never mind its too late for that --Astrokey 44 13:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process.  Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction.  Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible?  I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vizjim and badlydrawnjeff. I have to disagree with you, GT. Quite a few games certainly belong in AfD, but quite a few have no business being here. Hence no global delete from me. Fluit 18:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we'll see I guess. I still think it would have been easier to list them all then identify those that don't belong. — GT 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, will never have WP:V content beyond how to play, and WP:NOT a list of instructions (which this is). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody has cited a good reason to keep it. Brian G. Crawford 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Except, you know, verifiability with sources and notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the significance of that book, that being mentioned in it earns you a Wikipedia article? — GT 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a book published by a noted publisher about drinking games. It doesn't seem to violate anything listed here, so I believe it's fair game. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Andrews McMeel Publishing is a redlink. 2) WP:RS has nothing to do with notability. — GT 08:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8?  This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.  An article on "Hi-Lo" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted).  However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article. JeffBurdges 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per Viz. Dspserpico 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:44, 9 May 2006 (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.