Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winners Don't Use Drugs


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Winners Don't Use Drugs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are only three sources, two of which are reviews of media parodying the phrase. Recycle It, Don't Trash It! was previously deleted, so I don't see why this should stay. Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Just doing a cursory Google search on both news and books shows this phrase popping up a lot, and because it was coming from the Advertising Council of the DOJ so there's gov't documents on it. Books are showing a lot of hints more than just passing mention (there's connection to McGruff here as well), so there would need to be a more thorough review of print sources that can easily support why this campaign and any effects that it had to reduce drug use by game players. --M asem  (t) 06:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge into American Amusement Machine Association which appears to be notable and should be recreated with proper sources. It seems to have been primarily behind adding the slogan to arcade games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Did you not google the topic before nominating it for deletion? There's tons of sources out there waiting to be pulled. This phrase is arguably one of the most famous phrases in gaming history. This should not be even nominated. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Such as? It would help if you listed the sources in question.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Inverse and Escapist have lengthy articles on the phrase. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Masem’s comment, simply doing a quick Google search provides plenty of reliable sources covering this. I’m sure with some digging that more can be found, but it still has enough coverage to warrant itself having an article. It’s like the nominator didn’t even bother looking for anything before attempting to nominate this for deletion. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - extremely notable hoax. The inverse article is fairly in depth, as is this one, I've little doubt more could be found. Wily D  17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a notable hoax. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2019 (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.