Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liar's dice (relist 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;) 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Liar's dice
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 10:25, 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 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "Cheat Dice", and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete for two reasons: There is a commercially published game with the same title and similar rules (biggest difference being the lack of reference to drinking), so describing this as a public domain game may present copyright problems; and, really, the contents of one book about drinking games are not encyclopedic content for one article, let alone a hundred.  Barno 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With over 250+ drinking game books, noting that one book lists it and it ISN'T the msost complete guide suggests wider acceptance. Besides, the nom claimed it was unsourced - we now have a source.  He claimed it was unverifiable - that is false.  Thus... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of "suggesting wider acceptance", why not tell us how many of those hundreds of books actually lists this game? Thousands of topics, maybe hundreds of thousands, are mentioned in a few non-authoritative books but are not important enough for encyclopedia entries.  What makes this book worth citing as a reference, and not just a case for WP:NFT or Wikipedia is not for things made up in a prison cell?  So far you've only verified that this game (and all these other nominated ones) appear in one book whose importance I don't see.  You also haven't addressed the Milton Bradley copyrighted game.  Barno 18:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the Milton Bradley game, but if the game exists, more strength behind keeping this article. The nomination said unsourced and unverifiiable.  Published third-party sources easily solve this problem.  Why is this book worth citing?  It's a book published by a noted publisher dealing with drinking games.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know anything about a Milton Bradley game either, but this was a popular game thirty years ago (we played without booze, come to that, and I still have the old cigar box with which we played, too).  That MB decided to cash in on a popular game by writing one with the same name is understandable, but readily enough distinguishable by Liar's Dice (Milton Bradley), if need be. RGTraynor 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The written text of rules is copyrightable, but not the abstract rules themselves. You could make a Monopoly or Scrabble clone and as long as you didn't straight out copy anything and you avoided trademarks, you'd be fine.--Prosfilaes 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep; to meet WP:NOT content should be limited to the published games and not the rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; simple mention of the rules is not a tutorial, and encyclopedias (which Wikipedia is) have long included rules for notable games; both EB 1911 and EB Online include rules for chess, for example.--Prosfilaes 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; the assertion it is unverifiable is absurd. The game has been around for decades with tens of thousands of references on the Internet. The nominator should have at least done minimal research before making such a nomination. 2005 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You kid, right?  I've played Liar's Dice in England, Wales, US and Canada. -- GWO
 * keep please this is a extremely popular game and erasing this makes no sense Yuckfoo 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you have got to be joking keep  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's an internationally award-winning board game - it shouldn't be deleted just because there's a drinking game variant. Percy Snoodle 13:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as this appears to be a highly notable dice game, with or without the drinking aspects. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I've seen this game played on three continents. This mass nomination, even listed seperately seems like WP:POINT. Dspserpico 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep Liar's dice is a legitimate gambling game, and this doesn't seem quite so much an instruction manual.Apollo 10:47, 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.