Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up the river, down the river (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 of the debate was keep.  Grue  17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Up the river, down the river
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 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete drunkcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:36, 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 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete who respects an encyclopedia that contains articles about drinking games? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a slippery slope.... Delete as nn drinking game. Eusebeus 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Notable game, listed in such publications as The Best Drinking Game Book Ever.  With over 250 Amazon search results... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Crzrussian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Who respects an encyclopedia that contains articles about drinking games?" is not part of the deletion criteria. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again WP:NOT is; qualifies under Not an indiscriminate collection, number 8 (instruction manual). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I presume that in referring to WP:NOT you are specifically talking about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", point 8?  This says, I quote - Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.  An article on "Up the river, down the river" has the obvious potential to contain a) history and evolution of the game, b) its cultural significance, c) appearances in books, on TV shows, in films etc, and thus is more than simply a collection of rules (it doesn't matter if these things are not there or haven't been completed: the fact is, they could be inserted).  However, the rules need to be included as otherwise it would be impossible to give a clear idea of the game - and I presume you are not arguing that the entries for Chess and Soccer should be deleted? Vizjim 10:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as how-to. Brian G. Crawford 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper; this is a sub page of the drinking game article.  JeffBurdges 15:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please like jeff said wikipedia is not paper and this is notable Yuckfoo 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of dubious usefulness, but it's verifiable per bdj. Maybe a merge a summary of all these to a central article? Z iggurat 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per vizjim. Dspserpico 17:47, 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 10:52, 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.