Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vegetable 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. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vegetable Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Article about a drinking game with absolutely no sources other than two YouTube videos. While the videos may prove that it exists, they're not sufficient to demonstrate that this game is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I've searched for reliable sources on this game, both under this title and under the altnerate title given in the first sentence, and I can't find anything even resembling a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @250  · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep, are both reasonable sources.   is a book that appears to cover a non-drinking version.  There were a few other sources including one  that uses this article as a source/reference.  Hobit (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the first or the third as reliable sources — they appear to be essentially self-published — and the second doesn't give substantial coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is the third one, published by B&N. It appears  or to have a whole section on the topic (not available on-line).  I'm curious why you think realbeer is self-published (looks like a small, but real company). Hobit (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's submitted by an individual. Moreover, the company is publishing it — it's not known to be a reliable publisher of information.  The confusing bit is that I forgot that you gave four sources — read "first", "third", and "second" as "first", "fourth", and "third".  I don't see the second as reliable either, however.  Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we'll need to agree to disagree. The book appears to have a fair bit of coverage (describes the game in full I think) but we can't see it with the format given.  I wouldn't use some of those sources to source an article in the Arab Israeli conflict, but for a drinking game I think they are fine. I do suspect a merge somewhere would be the best bet, but I don't have a clue where. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources Hobit cites indicates substantial coverage, just mentions of the game, establishing its existence, but nobody has questioned its existence. There is no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, those are full descriptions of the game. If reliable sources cover the game in depth (and yes, explaining the whole game is depth), it's notable on Wikipedia (see WP:N).  If those sources _are_ reliable is debatable (the book certainly is, the websites I'm less sure of but I think at least one of them is), thus my weak !vote.  Hobit (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. No indication of notability beyond being yet another of countless drinking games. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the sources? Hobit (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the "sources" even attempt to show notability, they just summarise the rules among a directory of hundreds of similar games. Besides, we haven't stooped to considering stuff like "www.studentdrinkinggames.com" a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hummm, for the topic I'd consider it reliable. Asked the question at the RS noticeboard.  Further, yes, coverage of the rules by a reliable source (that's independent, etc.) does count for WP:N and meeting our inclusion guidelines.  The book is clearly a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, does this website have a high reputation for fact-checking and for good editorial oversight? I don't see any significant coverage that solidly fits the definitions at WP:RS.  Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing they got the rules wrong? Or are you arguing that because they don't have a reputation for fact-checking they don't count toward WP:N?  I'd disagree with both, but I'm curious where you are coming from.  Hobit (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a paraphrase of matters in WP:RS. Sources that don't have a good reputation for checking their facts aren't reliable, and we need reliable sources to establish notability.  Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but when we discuss reliablility of sources, we also discuss "reliable for what". The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, but not for most issues of science. The question here is if that site is reliable for drinking game rules.  Are you seriously claiming it's not?  Hobit (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete YouTube is not a RS and the videos don't prove the game exists beyond the world of those videos, and even if they did it seems that as a simple point and shoot documentary it would be a primary source, and secondary or tertiary sources would still be needed. Realbeer and studentdrinkinggames are not RS; they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  The book House party games and amusements for the upper class and other folks can't be read online, but since it's said above not to be presented as a drinking game there, using it as a source would be WP:OR of the WP:SYNTH variety.  I am confident that there are some drinking games that are notable and can be reliably sourced, but this does not appear to be one of them. Шизомби (talk) 05:27, 23 December 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.