Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven-Eleven Doubles (relist 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 of the debate was Keep. --Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Seven-Eleven Doubles
One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process.  Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction.  Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible?  I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever, and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fine WP:V example of WP:NOT per my previous; I agree with User:Vizjim on background/origins/etc, but this is not, and never will be, that kind of article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why not?  This is a genuine question: how can you be sure that someone won't ever be able to add such details in from a verified source? Vizjim 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. How-to, no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Except, you know, in a published book by a noted publisher. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep a solid drinking game... I've played many times.


 * Keep. Almost standard in England, including the point only with your elbows rule.  Puritans suck.  -- GWO
 * keep please another very popular game we should document Yuckfoo 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak delete Due to the point about this being an instruction manual. It seems to belong either in Wiktionary or perhaps as a two-sentence entry in "Drinking Games".Apollo 10:50, 9 May 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.