Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumb war


 * 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumb war

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, non-notable, just pointless! magnius (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete along with Thumb wrestling: remained unsourced for four five years. Alexius08 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect – To Thumb twiddlingas it is talked about briefly there and is a natural fit . Keep - Regarding sources, there are actually some for thumb wrestling at Google Scholar as shown here  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (Changed to Keep based on the sources I showed above and arguments below)  ShoesssS Talk 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the one "source" only references the game and provides none of the "facts" included in the article so there's nothing to merge. As I recall, this article (Thumb wrestling) came about from one editor's attempt to create a Wikipedia biography about himself as the official thumb wrestling world champion.  To that end he created his own "federation" (as a web page) where he advertised "championship bouts" and crowned himself winner - all of which he attempted to use as sources for the article.  However, the only thing notable about the editor was his hubris, and even that's not reliable sourced.  Rklawton (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – To address your concerns, there are slightly more than just one reference available with regards to the term Thumb war/wrestling, at Google Scholar, I show something like 26,000+ hits, as shown above by following the link. Regarding why the article was first started, has no bearing on the article itself.  Either something is notable or it is not.  If you like, I could source 10-15-20 or more works to the term.  However, I think that maybe over kill.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - reliable sources specifically indicating this subject's notability as well as supporting the facts contained therein would make an excellent addition to the article. Without this, the article is worthless.  As it stands now, this article has exactly one source which only mentions thumb wrestling and fails to support any of the facts contained therein.  The article's origins and development are useful in showing that its creation lacked good faith and casts significant doubt on the subject's worthiness.  Rklawton (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep sorry, it is clearly notable.  While it is unsourced, that is just a matter of putting in the time to improve the article.  Article should probably be called thumb wrestling though.  afd is not a means to improving an article, nor is it a means for removing an article that could be improved.  161 google scholar articles on thumb wrestling...   yep, needs improvement.   --Buridan (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. This is a well-known kids game. ,  , ,  are some descriptions in published books found in a very quick Google books search.  Do not redirect to Thumb twiddling; it's a game distinct from the thumb-twiddling activity. TJRC (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we have articles on hopscotch and rock paper scissors and plenty more. This is absolutely a real and commonly played game, no reason we can't make this into a decent article. Ben Kidwell (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. You do realise that you should search for sources before nominating or !voting in AfD, right? Lots of good sources can be found at Google Books, as TJRC points out. I don't understand this desire to wipe all trace of popular culture from Wikipedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sourcing shown here for  notability.   Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and these fundamental almost universal games are part of what it should be covering.  The sources were trivial to find, and another example of why WP:BEFORE should be required.    DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. has done an excellent job at demonstrating that there are plenty of sources out there for this topic, more than enough to demonstrate an entry is warranted.  is right on too with his comments about the fact that this is a comprehensive encyclopedia. —  Hunter   Kahn  ( c )  18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:28, 26 October 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.