Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd, but not peculiar


 * 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. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG as none of the sources count as significant coverage. No prejudice against userfyfing the article should someone find the content merge-worthy. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd, but not peculiar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unremarkable game,i dont think it needs to be on wikipedia,let the community decide.Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real coverage to cite the article with. Ducknish (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that most people who went to summer camp in the USA will probably be familiar with this game in some form. I think the addition of external references (including published books) should satisfy the NOR requirement. As for notability, I think ObnP is no less notable than Johnny Whoops and Scissors (game). AVOIDCOI disclosure: I am the creator of this article.  However, if there is a larger topic that "Odd, but not peculiar" would fit into, I would not be averse to merging it into the larger article. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have added external references, including to two published books on the subject of games of this type. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the article in its current state has enough references to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - does this really pass WP:GNG? Wiki Answers is obviously not reliable, the Parade.com source seems very blog-ish and tabloidy to me, Wildrapid.com is almost certainly a blog. That leaves two books, which I can't fully analyse as there are only very small snippets of the book available. There's plenty of passing remarks using this phrase, and several other things in non-reliable sources, but I'm really not seeing any significant, non-trivial coverage in clear WP:RS - I get the feeling the coverage in those books either classifies as trivial or routine, or that it simply isn't in-depth coverage. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (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.