Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Shit (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 (no consensus). Jeff has provided a source, though that book refers to the game as "Bullshit". With that in mind, I will move this. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Who Shit
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. Please consider the article on its own merits, and not on the fact that many articles of this type have been nominated today -- Saberwyn 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Holding my nose, I'll vote 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. Also, the category listing didn't work because this sort of leg-work needs to be done on each drinking game article in turn.  If some are verifiable and considered encyclopedic material by other editors, then the category delete is null and void. Vizjim 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "Bullshit," and with 250+ Amazon.com drinking game books listed... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT and rules once more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 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 this drinking game 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 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 23:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Except, you know, a published book. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, provide citation in article, and move to Bullshit (drinking game) per badlydrawnjeff. -- Saberwyn 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- MaNeMeBasat 10:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and probably best to move to bullshit (drinking game) like suggest Yuckfoo 01:17, 7 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.