Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stinkety Pinkety


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Stinkety Pinkety

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "Given the famous originator, this needs a source in published sources about Kaufman". I am frankly a bit confused by that, as this does not read like a deprodding rationale, merely a criticism of inadequae sources. I don't see a single mention of this in Google Books. At most this could be redirected and merged to the creator's biography, but it doesn't look likely that it can be kept as a game of stand-alone notability. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself also found nothing and there's simply nothing else suggesting otherwise including significance and then significance for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Has anyone searched for this in theextensive biographic material about George S. Kaufman ?  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, it does not appear to exist as a searchable keyword in Google Books or in Google Scholar. Frankly, it may be a WP:HOAX, with ~200 web mentions being based on this article, through it might be mentioned at . That book only has a snippet view in Google Books, but in theory it should be searchable, but this phrase does not return any result. It seems to be pretty low profile, and since it is not in LibGen (I looked), well, the venerability of this is hard. There is also the issue of Everyman's Library works as a source. Anyway, can someone prove this is not a hoax? The more I look into that, DGG, the more non-notable (at the very least) this looks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The Kaufman attribution is almost certainly a hoax, but the thing described in the article is a kind of "folk game". I remember playing it in English class in middle school, I think as part of a lesson from Michael Clay Thompson's The Word Within The Word. Jergling (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I remember this concept from puzzle books when I was a kid, but they were called "hink pinks," "hinky pinkies," and "hinkety pinketies." | Google results] Joyous! | Talk 18:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this term is used widely. Joyous! | Talk 04:38, 24 November 2016 (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.