Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pin the Tail on the Donkey


 * 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   Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) -- M P er el  01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pin the Tail on the Donkey

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

This page is unsourced, uncited, and after being in such a state for four years, there is no evidence as to why this page should exist at this encyclopedia. SeinHenker (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: The game is obviously notable. Being unsourced is not the same as being unsourcable.  D C Edwards 1966  18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I marked as .  D C Edwards  1966  18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is kind of hard just to take the word of a wikipedia editor that this game is notable. I have never heard of it, and for all I know it was made up entirely.  I try to assume good faith, but the article has been in existence for four years without citations.  Thats enough to be suspicious about. Maintaining the status quo of possible original research should not be the goal of this encyclopedia. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it never made it to Germany. =) My comments are a bit descriptive on my thoughts on the topic, and if the game never made it to Germany, I can only assume good faith on your part. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Existence is not equal to notability, in general. But I do believe this article has notability, and therefore, should be kept. I'm sure references are out there, though they may be difficult for the average internet user to locate. A children's game like this that is known in societies over a great distance must have been described in some book somewhere. Even if it is not in every town's library or in Barnes & Noble, it has been published somewhere. Maybe a expert tag should be placed here.Hellno2 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: The game is obviously notable in the US. And, while not useful for sourcing, the link supplied in the article, including its mention in a book from 1920 , proves beyond a doubt that the game exists.  D C Edwards 1966  18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable children's game and should be easily sourceable. Arkyan 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be being the operable words here. Last I checked, the article has not been sourced for over four years. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I remember playing Pin the Tail as a kid... hmm, good times, it's a keeper.  treelo  talk 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but last I checked, this was not the unsourcedgoodtimespedia. I have a childhood memory of playing on a soccer team when I was 8. Is that team notable? Absolutely not. It was good times though...--SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The soccer team you played in when you were 8 is a bit different though. It's popular amongst various cultures in many countries and a lot of reliable sourcing at least back up the idea that many editors here are not being fed false memories of their childhoods playing games that never existed at birthday parties. Oh yeah, no offense taken. treelo  talk 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is so notable a topic that it has been used as the title for a book on children's games. I can understand the nominator doubting an article on a topic that is unsourced and unfamiliar to them, but a quick search on Google books provides evidence of notability; negating the need for AfD. -Verdatum (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you volunteering to rewrite the article (just kidding). But seriously though that does not negate the fact that everything in the article is possible original research or plagiarism.--SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply It's already been mentioned below, but I urge you to read AfD is not cleanup and AfD is not for Surmountable problems. Would you care to withdraw your nomination now? There is no shame in it. -Verdatum (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close - I'm calling on account os WP:SNOW and ignoring the rules. Yes, I know what it means to ignore the rules.  This is one of those things, rare though it is, that carries its own notability, but resources almost don't exist for it - I almost want to say it's ingrained into child birthday party culture, at least in the United States.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, I know ghits isn't a good AfD reason, but 141,000 non-wiki ghits, almost 2,000 gnews hits, plus the fact that just about every child in the US has played this game leads me to believe that notability is out there.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. C'mon people. With the time taken to make the AfD and all the responses here, five sources (or more) could have been added to the article.  I used the supplied link to insert the first book on the list as a reference.  Couldn't some others do the same?  Let's get up off our collective duffs and fix the article rather than saying it can be fixed.  With all the sources in existence it shouldn't be hard to find another one to add.  Bah... I'll go away and try not to rant to myself further... --Craw-daddy | T | 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepI'm amazed that anyone would think this is not notable. As has been said above, it's part of being a child. It's also a notable phrase, some meanings printable, some not. Oh, and it's used in child development studies, look at the reference in the article. The game is used in various learning situations also.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, not everyone was born in or grew up in the US. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreedm but everyone can use Google Scholar and Google Books, which I suggest show that it is notable.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I assume good faith, it is unfortunate that someone unfamiliar with a topic's culture would not use a search engine to verify same before nominating. AFD is not cleanup, and a possibility of being plagiarism is not a sufficient rationale for deletion. A claim of original research should be justifiable by pointing to unusual or surprising conclusions that cannot be cited. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The rational for deletion is basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:NOEFFORT. If it's unsourced and full of OR, fix it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I guess kids don't play this anymore, but it was very popular back in the day.... Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2008 (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.