Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambunot (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   Redirect to Traditional games in the Philippines. (non-admin closure) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sambunot
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. This article does not refer to any social importance. It would be better off at WikiHow, whose purpose if to host "how-to" type entries. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest redirect instead of deletion - to Traditional games in the Philippines, as mentioned below --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep last AfD was just a few weeks ago and it closed as keep. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict)Keep. I don't see that anything has changed since this was kept at its first AfD 16 days ago. The books cited in the article and referred to in the last AfD show that the subject has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The "procedure" section could do with rewriting to make it descriptive rather than instructive, but that's a matter for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying that the game does not exist, or that there are no references to it in books (including in the reference provided).
 * However, the article is just a "how to play this game". The reference provided in the article (A study of Philippine games By Mellie Leandicho Lopez) and in the previous AfD Games the world around: four hundred folk games By Sarah Ethridge Hunt, Ethel Cain would both appear to show how to play it, but I see no evidence that they also provide the history of the game, the social importance of it, etc.
 * I wouldn't normally think of nominating an article for deletion so soon after the previous was so recently closed - but I do not see anything in the article explaining the social significance of this game - along with suitable references.
 * If anyone can show me where in the policies and guidelines it says that a how-to-play article is OK, I'll happily withdraw this nomination.
 * I should point out, however, that WP:NOT is a policy, and clearly seems to says that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal and While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style" - and further refers people to WikiHow as I have done both on this AfD and on the user's talk page. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you note, the game exists and has some solid sources. As noted in that AfD I'd prefer a merge of all these games into a single article.  But a stub on the game is just fine.  Describing how to do something is sometime similar to describing the thing itself.  Kids games are almost always like that, but we still cover them. If you want to delete this, I suggest you also nominate Hide and seek and Horseshoes.  Otherwise I think we are hitting a cultural bias issue. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOT is policy, but if an article on a notable subject is written in a way that contravenes that policy the solution is to edit it, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me explain why I believe that the two examples put forward by Hobit are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, whereas this article (and the other 2 I put up) are not. Hide and seek shows variations in several countries: to me, this shows that the game is relevant in several country (it has a more global notability). Horseshoes may not mention international variants, but it does have a recognised national organisation which represents it and co-ordinates it.
 * If Sambunot (and Hawk and Chicken and Hole-in) were to show variants from different countries and/or indication that there was some kind of national organisation that sets out official rules and competitions, then I will happily withdraw my nominations for any of them which meet that criteria. I feel that these should be mentioned at Traditional games in the Philippines in the same way that the other games are mentioned at that article - a sentence or two explaining in outline what the game is. I do not see that they justify an article of their own without more information about variants in other countries, mention of national bodies that co-ordinate the game and/or mention of social relevance or importance. I had a look for such information on all three articles, but I was unable to find anything along these lines --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is too how-to-ish and not encyclopedic. Furthermore, I think it fails WP:GNG as I can't find much coverage via a web search. PDCook (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It has already been established via a Google Books search that coverage exists. The fact that you can't find anything via a web search doesn't negate those sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it exists, but existence is not notability. PDCook (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the existence of the subject, which, I agree, doesn't equate to notability, but about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which does equate to notability, and, less than three weeks ago, was accepted by consensus as equating to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that there are at least 2 reliable sources of information, I am not convinced that they represent significant coverage: from what I can see, those sources merely explain how the game is played - similar to this article. Does that mean that we need to create another 400+ "how to play" articles for the other games in those books? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to keep more information unless Wikipedia Foundation needs to free up webspace to save money.--Phil997 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC) — Phil997 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  User blocked as a sockpuppet. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, in large part due to the prior AfD that passed as a keep very recently. If there are concerns with the content of the article, they should be discussed at the article's talk page. If they go uncorrected for a sufficient period of time—and three weeks is not sufficient—then the article could warrant going back to AfD, but this is premature. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added Bati-Cobra, Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken") and Sambunot to Traditional games in the Philippines, as I feel that this is a more appropriate location for them --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I now think that this article should not be deleted, but redirected to Traditional games in the Philippines, as all the information is now there, and so there is no need for a separate article. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve, good work! I'd suggest the 3 AfDs be closed and each be made into a redirect. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If PDCook changes their !vote from delete, I'm quite happy to perform a non-admin closure and create the redirect on this article. I will leave a similar message on the other 2 AfDs, if you want to make the suggestion on those as well! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I change my vote to Redirect as suggested by Phantomsteve. PDCook (talk) 23:04, 30 November 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.