Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis game (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 was   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Penis game
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not enough reliable sources. One is a student newspaper, and the other is a movie review, all of which only trivially mention the game. The sources dug up in the last AFD are all similarly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't by off on the mention of it in a movie review and a school newspaper as non-trival coverage by reliable sources. Also took care of the vandalism done to the last AfD discussion.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Same reason as Niteshift, well, at least the first sentence.-- Abce2 | Access  Denied  14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — Trivial, non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment The article's description of this game fits my use of the term, but I also could not find sources to verify. However, a Google News search yields a fair number of hits for a different game from Waiting... and it may be worth making this a redirect to the movie's article. —Ost (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a good reason to suspect that there will never be enough standardization in this sort of game to merit a separate article, except possibly a mention in Chicken (game). Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Very notable prank/ party game. Would be fine to merge it. I don't know why we would need to delete this well established silliness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources proving notability were provided in the previous AFD. To sources listed there, add, . Edison (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first link is talking about game from Waiting... where one tries to get others to look at his penis. That is not what this article describes.  Also, neither of those sources have significant coverage of the game as they mention it mostly in passing.  As I mentioned before, my personal experience confirms this article, but I have not seen–and could not find–the significant coverage in reliable sources to verify and demonstrate WP:N. —Ost (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is borderline, but there's no harm in having the article.  Powers T 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per last AfD and per arguments by Edison and provided sources. Seems notable to me with sufficient, if not overwhelming, RS. — Becksguy (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per last AfD. 10 Lb.'s argument is compelling; I urge him to reference this with a WP rule that is relevant. The arguments of Niteshift, abce2, and Ibaranoff24 all fail as legitimate under WP:IDL, where "Delete as trivia" is given as an example of arguments to avoid. I put to you and to Jclemens, who required of the game that its rules be standardized so that they could be recorded here, that standardization would in fact make the article shorter and less interesting. Anarchangel (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Notability is barely existent. Question is better whether this is encyclopedic in any way as a stand-alone article rather than a minor variation of an existing game.SpikeJones (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:30, 21 June 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.