Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Allen Drinking Game


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rod Allen Drinking Game
Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. --dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. You don't have to be in school for it to be made up in school .... Daniel Case 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-encyclopedic rubbish. - Richardcavell 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - extremely non-notable, unverifiable, and very stupid. --S-man 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per Nomiator. Couldn't say it better myself. Also, I believe this is something to remember: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Bschott 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. --dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is user's sole edit. Daniel Case 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you raised the issue, I went and checked Category:Drinking games. Yes, it's well-populated ... but looking at a random selection of articles there, I was astounded at how many are utterly unsourced. And the one Google I did, on Thunderdome (drinking game) turned up one hit independent of Wikipedia or its mirrors, at barmeister.com, which I do not have the time to check for reliability. I think it's time to go through and winnow this category down some ... it's far too vulnerable to WP:NFT-type stuff. Daniel Case 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree that the category needs to be whittled down a bit. Wikipedia shouldn't become a drinking game repository. For reference, barmeister.com is of the "Submit a drinking game" variety, so its reliability is questionable; it's best as a backup source. --Wafulz 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Buffalo Wild Wings not being a reliable source. --Wafulz 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Keep This is a game that is fun for the whole family and just as notable as any of the other drinking games. --X96lee15 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry.  Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game.  If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old. As a rule you'll notice there are no TV-based drinking games in the drinking games category, because not only are they quintessential fancruft, they never really catch on and I doubt anyone actually plays them (Besides, they're not really games, just observations about the show's clichés made in the form of a drinking game. And "X drinks when Y happens" gets old fast). Daniel Case 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you post what you found please? Also, if the page is deleted, resubmitting it will just get it deleted and protected. --Wafulz 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old.  And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable.  Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia.  I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * who the heck is Mike Lange and why would you want a drinking game for him?!?!? That's preposterous.  Like it ot not, Rod Allen is an excellent sportscaster and this article is without-a-doubt-relevant.  And maybe one of the 10 links returned from google was a blog, the others were not; they were message boards.  There is a very big difference between the two. --X96lee15 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This pretty clearly illustrates my point. Mike Lange is significant to the Pittsburgh Penguins and to NHL fans and has his own drinking games. There's no difference between his significance and that of Rod Allen. About message boards: If you'd like I could make a post on hfboards (hockey fan boards) to spread the Mike Lange drinking game to prove message boards are also unreliable sources. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While I don't care about Mike Lange, you have the right to create a Wikipedia article on him and/or his drinking game, if it's significant enough. If there is significant message board chatter, then I'm all for it. --X96lee15 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite the opposite is true. I do not have the right to create an article on a Mike Lange Drinking Game if there is significant message board chatter; message boards are not reliable sources. It would be very easy to create a message board fad- this is why articles like Happycat are constantly being deleted. Wikipedia is not for fads or something made up at school one day (WP:NFT). --Wafulz 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. My only beef with this whole deletion is that there are other less-relevant (IMO) "Drinking Games" already on Wikipedia.  That's why I'm opposed to this deletion. X96lee15 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What are you people, Sox fans??!? --Beal99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs)
 * Volunteer online open-content encyclopedia editors who uphold standards that were established long before most of us began editing. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is hilarious --Tony Eveready — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but not in the way that you think. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This keeps younger (21 years+) kids watching Tiger's games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Note Hilarity and appeal to younger viewers are not arguments for notability or encyclopedic value, and both of those "keep" votes were entered by the same IP address.   --dtony 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, 69.241.235.195, but I struck your last keep because you have already had your say. Also, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. (what was per the WP:AFD page) --Bschott 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--referenced today in Detroit Free Press--71.13.216.11 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mike C. Tiger's Fan
 * Keep Mentioned in the Detroit Free Press. Is it notable yet? --ThatsHowIRoll 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More accurately, the fact that it was in Wikipedia got mentioned. This strikes me as hilariously irresponsible journalism considering the piece was written today but the article was marked for deletion before then. The Rod Allen Game, featuring the Tigers' television analyst on FSN, has made it into on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.com. --Wafulz 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using the newspaper as a source for the game; just saying the fact that a journalist and his editors thought the game was notable enough to mention it in a major Detroit newspaper adds some validity to it. There is only one line about Wikipedia in the article; the rest of it is about the game, First, it was Big League Chew. Now, another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state. Like Wafulz said above unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. The Detroit Free Press said it was sweeping the state, does that mean you change your stance on the issue? --ThatsHowIRoll 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The game was three days old when it was posted, and the article mentions Wikipedia as its only source. Everything outside of the first paragraph is quoted from Wikipedia. It celebrates the fact that a drinking game based around Rod Allen made it onto Wikipedia. Basically, the only reason the game got a trivial mention in the online ticker was because it had a Wikipedia article, which is exactly why we don't want articles like this on the site. My stance remains. --Wafulz 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete —  WP:OR and all the others above. &mdash;  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I first saw the term Rod Allen Drinking game on a Myspace comment that dates back to 7/6/2006. So the game wasn't invented 3 days ago, just posted on a blog a few days ago. I understand that Wikipedia does not feel like Myspace and blogs are good sources. But no matter how the game got notable, the fact is now the game is notable. People play the game. It was mentioned in the Free Press. If you search Rod Allen on Yahoo, the first "Also try" is "Rod Allen drinking game" If you don't watch the games or know who Rod Allen is, I don't feel like you should decide if the game is notable or not. I dont expect people in California to find it notable, but in Detroit it is. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that it was a completely trivial mention based off of notability implied in that it had a Wikipedia article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article- you argue the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. Do you see the same problem I see? Also, the Yahoo! thing is irrelevant. See Google bomb. --Wafulz 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have different opinions on the news piece. You seem to think it is about how the game got an article on Wikipedia. I feel like the article is about telling more people about the game, hence the another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state line. Followed by the rules and an example of the game quoted from the Wikipedia article. Its not a nation thing, it a Michigan thing. I'm sure most people don't know the importance of Big League Chew to the Tigers, but in Detroit, everyone knows. The problem is that the Wikipedia article has become the sole source of the game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't exist. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "sweeping the state" line gains a lot of support based on the fact that it has a Wikipedia article. Big League Chew has also been around for about 25 years and is significant to more than just Tigers fans- the fact that it's important to them has a brief mention in the "Trivia" section. You're making it sound like the Big League Chew article exists solely because of its significance to the Tigers. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

''From: Jahnke, James  To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod
 * Keep per Detroit Free Press mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. I also know that the game was widespread enough for someone to have thought about a news article about it, check wikipedia about it, and then note that Wikipedia has an entry on it.  The game is obviously notable if you need notability to make a decision, and the game is now verifiable.  My position stands.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I also want to remind people, one newspaper article does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source.  Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or drinking game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!  Since the newspaper article was written after the Wiki page, and refers specifically to the wiki page, the article is in violation of this rule.  Sources cite on an article must be Reliable - Specifically - Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference.  The newspaper article references the wiki article as a source, hence the wiki article would be self-referencing by using the newspaper article as a source to verify this game. The fact of the matter is, this article fails two of the Wiki policies on Article Standards.  No Original Research, and Verifiability, and the majority of anons in this discussion are not basing their statements on the Wiki Standards but on their personal feelings for a sports team. As it is jeff, I personally feel your stand holds no merit when applied to the Wiki Article Standards. --Bschott 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple:  this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication.  We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source.  Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant.  My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable.  Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more  major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article.  That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy.  The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article?  Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right?  It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right?  No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research.  Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR.  The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing.  There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article.  We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known.  No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown.  If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're just running around in circles at this point. The article is verifiable by the Detroit Free Press (highly non-trivial and nationally known), it's NPOV, and no longer/doesn't fail original research.  I'm failing to see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is trivial in both length and content, it sources Wikipedia, and the Detroit Free Press is "nationally known" on the basis that it has "Detroit" in its name. It is still a local newspaper- it just happens to be in a large city. The original research still stands- where did the material come from? Blogs and message boards. What did the news article add to the wikipedia entry? Nothing. It apparently can't be stressed enough that this article is self-referencing. --Wafulz 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's a stub in reality. No problems there. As for the Detroit Free Press, it's the 12th largest paper by circulation in the US, that stands for something. Whether the material came from blogs is irrelevant, truly - the information was important enough to be used in a newspaper article. The news article itself may not add anything new to the article proper, but it does infer notability and verifability that may not have existed before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we are running around in circles, but I am not willing to concede to your point, jeff, that it somehow magically passes OR. Looking at the history through untinted glasses [Edit: I don't know if you are a Tiger's fan or not]] shows that this was OR when the AFD was created.  The DFP article (trivial or not) still has the article falling  short of multiple third-party sources.  Since the article references Wiki as the source of this game, I can't, in good faith, accept the DFP article as a mention of notability or Verfibiliy. If the article had mentioned the blog AND there were other newspapers that had picked up on the story before the AFD, I would concede this had merit. As it stands, there isn't an article that references the blog (only verifiable source of this game outside of wiki), and so...it fails OR. --Bschott 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this Red sox fan disagrees. It doesn't "magically pass" OR.  It passes WP:OR easily, note the key phrase that applies here:  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  The Detroit Free Press, even if it notes the Wikipedia entry for this article, meets this.  The part you're attempting to cite here is at WP:RS: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference."  Wikipedia is not citing itself in the article in question.  The DFP article uses Wikipedia as a source, but that does not run afoul of policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you run into issues with verifiability. Who do we have to verify this by? A few blogs and message boards, which are not reliable sources. What does the local newspiece say? That Wikipedia mentioned the game, so therefore the game must be notable because it is on Wikipedia. This is very circular logic. Please also take into account the length, relevance, and content of the article and not just the fact that it mentions the game. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a dog winning a local dog show, would you consider it notable? --Wafulz 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it.  If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different.  This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though.  People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs.  The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one.  Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki?  And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog.  That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability.  So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation.  As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable?  The answer is yes.  Is it original research?  If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention.  To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important."  The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then. It's actually your unlisted third: I want to comprehend, but I'm not understanding your protests given the policies you're citing.  Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I emailed the author of the Article yesterday and (he sounds like a really nice guy) here is his reply to my email. I commented that the Game's wiki article was up for deletion and if it was deleted, his article may need a footnote mentioning this.

Brian,

Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke.

''Thanks for reading, JRJ''

Just incase anyone wanted to know. --Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd hope people didn't take drinking games seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a link that mentions the Rod Allen Drinking Game back in 2004:  I think this adds a new twist to the situation. The article is now definitely not original research and it has been around longer than 3 days ago.  These were the two points mentioned as to why the article was up for deletion.  I do not see how anyone with a clear conscience can delete this article with this new information X96lee15 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate my comments on the subject being called "nonsense"; that is not very professional. And the subject of the article in question is not a joke.  It has been around for over 2 years and it mentioned in many different places, including the Detroit Free Press.  For the reasons given for deletion, this article should NOT be deleted. X96lee15 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sigh" While you are doing a good job researching this, you are mis-reading the Original Research standard here at wiki, or you haven't read it all together. Wiki needs independent, reliable, third-party mentions to make something verifiable and notable.  All we have is a few Blogs (which are not acceptable by wiki standards as Reliable


 * Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
 * Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources. 


 * Where are the primary sources?


 * In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.


 * I can't see that this is easily verifiable by and reasonable adult with specialist knowledge.


 * In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.


 * And...
 * ..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...


 * I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication before the wiki article was created. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published.


 * See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.


 * Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.


 * Even the article made the the DFP was quoted by the author to be just a tongue-in-cheek joke.


 * HERE IS THE KICKER


 * The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.


 * I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 16:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT, and Wikipedia is Not an Instruction Manual on how to play a game. The cardinal sin here, though, is that this article is inherently Unverifiable. Assuming this is even notable (which I do not concede), how does one verify any of what's claimed here? Scorpiondollprincess 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's still unverifiable. -- Whpq 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To address the two above, the basics of this article do not violate WP:OR or WP:V. Its existence is absolutely verifiable by a reliable, third party source.  The article needs to be cleaned up, for sure, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm afraid I still don't see it as verifiable. If, for example, someone questions the legitimacy of one of the "3 Drinks" rules, what is the verifiable, reliable, third party source to authoritatively consult? There's nothing but a passing mention in one newspaper article cited. That only verifies that the game exists (and has a wikipedia article). What's to prevent someone from adding, modifying, or making up new rules and listing them here? The rules themselves are not verifiable and smell strongly of WP:OR and WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Gazpacho 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I imagine that there are plenty of subjects that have slipped by the new page patrol that are speedyable; the fact that a newspaper noticed one doesn't automatically make it notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment my vote above still applies. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with the 4 or 5 delete votes above. Recury 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. A short summary of this game belongs in the Rod Allen article. The game does not conatin enough independent notability to carry an article on its own. The news article is the only thing saving it from an outright delete, as it appears to be a fair, independent confirmation of the subject.  Cdcon   18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This game was only mentioned in a news source because it has an article on the Wikipedia. This game originated on a blog, and the game remains very regional. This game at best should be mentioned in Rod Allens article (which it already does). --Porqin 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR. Is this a joke? The only source referenced in the article cites this very Wikipedia article as a source! Even if this game actually exists (i.e. is played by more than two people worldwide), it's still so silly as not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia unless it has some sort of actual notability. Sandstein 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep IRONY ALERT - to all the blowhards that want it gone - do you realize that pages of heated debate are they very thing that make it relevant? If this was complete garbage that went unnoticed, it would disappear without a trace.  What this has turned in to is NOT a debate of the worthiness of the article [the debate validates the worthiness], but rather a matter of pompous, holier-than-thou informationistas [Daniel Case] who are offended that a fun, creative individual with a sense of the moment has DARED to tread on their sacred bastion of intelligencia, and they are trying to eliminate it.  This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.145.11 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the compliment. It'll make a great epigraph to the deletion section on my user page. Daniel Case 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be. &mdash; This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and the essence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be is a verifiable encyclopaedia containing no original research and written from the neutral point of view. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment per my comments above -- if you read the Freep article, it only mentions that the game has been mentioned on wikipedia. It does not say that it originated on wikipedia.  Therefore, any arguments saying that the newpaper article was only written because of the wikipedia entiry are invalid, IMO. X96lee15 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the charge that the article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scorpiondollprincess has hit the nail on the head. The only way that has been put forward by ThatsHowIRoll, Badlydrawnjeff, and others, to verify any of the content of this article is to use a news article that used this very Wikipedia article as its source for the information in the first place.  Clearly, that isn't a source.  (It's also a gross misunderstanding of our long-standing Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy, which exists precisely because people attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to make the sort of shortcuts around the process of publication, fact checking, peer review, and absorbtion into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia, that Badlydrawnjeff is asserting are acceptable.)  The only other source, independent of Wikipedia, put forward that describes this game in any detail is a post on a web log, made a scant few days ago, and that provides no evidence that (despite what the post claims) this game and its rules are not the creation of a single person and that they have actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge.  I cannot find any further sources at all.  This article is original research and unverifiable.   The way for this game to get into Wikipedia is for it to be properly documented by multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia first.  Shortcuts are not allowed.  Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there.  X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The newspaper article text looks lifted straight from Wikipedia, and it cites no other source. No way it can be considered an independent source. Fan-1967 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the editor himself said it was tongue-in-cheek and a joke, as noted above. Also I hope my delete is still being counted from the original AfD.--Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * "The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there" That one goes in the hairsplitting Hall of Fame. Kinda reminds of the early Soviet government getting rid of the death penalty yet continuing to shoot people; they were just no longer being sentenced to be executed, merely shot. Daniel Case 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not anywhere near hairsplitting at all and is actually a completely valid point that hits at the crux of the argument that the article from the Detroit Free Press is commenting on how relevant and popular the game has become, that there is now a wikipedia article about it. I'd also ask that you refrain from comparing innocent civilians dying due to oppressive governments to whether a newspaper article was using a wikipedia article as a source or not. For that wildly inappropriate and childish comment, I'll ask that all of your comments be stripped from the argument as they are an amalgamation of how you've been nothing but condescending, presumptuous, and pompous through out the whole debate rendering your side and those on it ineffective and exposing your arguments under the supercilious and pedantic light that you and those on your side inexplicably shine proudly from. 134.215.210.125 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article on a drinking game? Are you people serious? J I P  | Talk 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your repeated claim that this is verifiable has yet to answer the question posed to you by Scorpiondollprincess above as to how readers and editors are to verify the content of this article. 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per UncleG and Scorpiondollprincess. -- Kinu t /c  20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. There are local variants of this for every broadcaster who has a catch phrase: You can put it on the board... YES!. -- Fan-1967 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the only reason you can think of to keep it is because there are other drinking games on here that need to be deleted, you need to read up on the Wikipedia policies some more. --PresN 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Uncle G; misses WP:V by a long way and WP:NFT applies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep there are a number of other drinking games listed on Wikipedia, and although while this is a new game it has been played by many in Michigan following the 2006 Tigers MidnightSwinga 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, we run into the problem of it being local, original research, a how-to and essentially unverifiable. The fact that other drinking games exist on Wikipedia has no bearing on the merit of this article. --Wafulz 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article that it is unverifiable. Your only argument against that is to cite sources that can be used to verify its contents.  Any other argument, such as personal testimony that the game has been played, is irrelevant.  Please cite sources. Uncle G 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep For reasons I listed under Daniel Case's unfortunate, disrespectful, immature, and ill-conceived comment about oppressive governments killing innocent civilians, as the drinking game is so relevant that the Detroit Free Press wrote an article about how popular it has become that there is now a wikipedia article for it.134.215.210.125 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment I don't know how many times people have to say this, but the DFP article was meant as a joke. I emailed the author, and posted his response to me above.  The DFP article cited only wikiapedia as it's source. In any case, there is nothing reputable that can be cited here as a SOURCE.  Just one news article (ironically three days after the AFD was in discussion) does not make something wikiapedia worthy. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the fact remains that the Rod Allen Drinking Game is a real thing that has gotten quite a bit of attention (based on the newspaper article, message board posts from 2004 and the lengthy discussion here). The article was pointing out that the ALREADY EXISTING Rod Allen game phenomenon has gotten so big that it even has a wikipedia entry.  It's sad that so many people want to have this article deleted.  Also, it does not matter that the author of the article said it was a joke; from WP:V: A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
 * Because of this, I do not think we can include the Free Press article author's email in this discussion. X96lee15 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Since Blogs, Personal Websites, and message board posts are not concidered Reliable or Reputable sources, can you cite sources that do pass the verifiable, Reliable, and Reputable sources test. The news paper does not count as a primary source as it 1) is published after the wikipedia article was made and 2) does not cite the source of this game. If this game is so big and widely known, where are the other articles or news stories on it?  Where is the primary source of information for this?  -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 06:04, 12 August 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.