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 Speedy keep based on nom's withdraw, no delete vote, and the recommendation that articles be nominated individually.. --Hetar 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced article describing a drinking game. It doesn't assert any notability. Prod was removed without comment.

I am also nominating the following articles because they have similar problems:

• Up the river, down the river
• Sociables
• Ride the Bus
• President (game)
• Kings (drinking game)
• Hi-Lo
• Horserace (drinking game)
• Fuck the Dealer
• Cross the River
• Beer Die
• Liar's dice
• Mr. Three
• Seven-Eleven Doubles
• Tablero da Gucci
• Blates
• Quarters
• Robopound
• Land Mine
• Roxanne (drinking game)
• Drink while you think
• 21 (game)
• Beer-In-Hand
• Buffalo (game)
• Caps (drinking game)
• Captain Paf
• Disassociation/Association
• FizzBuzz
• Bunnies drinking game
• Fuzzy Duck
• One fat hen
• Rumble
• Bouncing coins
• Matchboxes
• Who Shit
• Roman Numerals (game)
• Ten Minute Warning (drinking game)
• Drinking fives

Nomination withdrawn. I can see I'm not going to get a consensus on all of these, so I guess we'll have to relist them all separately. I hope someone else can do it because it took me forever to list it this way, and I simply don't have the time to relist them separately. Aplomado - UTC 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I agree that some of the above might not merit an article, but by lumping them all together you lost me. There are some games on this list that simply do not belong here. I haven't taken a survey, but most kids know Old Maid. Most places I've lived know the games President (game) and Quarters. Fluit 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then where is the notability??? We can remove Old Maid from this list if it need be, but tell me how the rest of these do not violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information item #8. Aplomado - UTC 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I fail to see what's indiscriminate about the article on Old Maid (for example). By that criterion, you may as well add Hearts, Bridge, and Cribbage to your list (or even Monopoly), and I'll say Keep on all of them. I agree that this isn't supposed to be a "how to" manual, but it's pretty hard to talk about a game without discussing the rules. Where WP:NOT would apply in an article on a game would be inclusion of an in-depth strategy guide. If you honestly think Old Maid (or other games, that's just my example) isn't notable, put a "{notable}" tag on the entry. Fluit 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, Old Maid is no longer on the list. Aplomado - UTC 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The point wasn't Old Maid per se. A lot of the games on the list don't belong. badlydrawnjeff sums it all up. Fluit 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these belong, drinking games or not. If drinking games have 250 books, imagin ewhat sober games have. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point. These pages are not sourced nor do they assert any notability. See: WP:VFD. It is perfectly easy to source that a popular card game is indeed popular. Providing an instruction manual is not an acceptable substitute. You people seem to be suggesting that every card game and every drinking game is ipso facto notable. I don't see how that jives with Wikipedia rules. Aplomado - UTC 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can be sourced, they're notable, and can be verified by reliable, published sources. They easily jive. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep to all. Not only is it impossible to figure out one from the other this way, but we know full well that drinking games are notable, and we can easily find at least 200 published references to them if we wanted to. Unnecessary AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep all as violation of WP:POINT [1]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How, pray-tell? And by the way, are any of you actually reading any of the articles nominated, or are you simply reacting to seeing more than one article listed? (BTW, as a note to administrators, Naconkantari originally removed the prods without comment) Aplomado - UTC 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did leave a comment on the AfD where I got your comment from [2]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, you fail to indicate what about this is in violation of WP:POINT. It is listed properly in accordance to normal AfD standards. Aplomado - UTC 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist separately. There are 38 different articles listed here. It would make editors' tasks easier if we don't have to offer complex votes like keeping 17, deleting 15 and merging 6 of them, or whatever. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are listed properly as according to official policy for multiple entries. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. They all have the exact same problem. (i.e., no notability asserted and no sources) Therefore, either all of them go or none of them go. Aplomado - UTC 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So since we can find over 200 published sources that can act as references and easily demonstrate notability, will you be retracting this? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Existence does not equal notability. You people are crazy if you think that FizzBuzz is notable enough to warrant its own article. That's all I have to say. If you all want to keep these articles depite their blatant violations of numerous Wikipedia rules, namely notability, verifiability, indsicriminate collection, etc. etc., be my guest. Aplomado - UTC 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'm crazy, then. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately. Some are speedy keeps; some are almost certainly NN. -Sean Curtin 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is ridiculous. --Yath 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, although I really do see the nom's argument holding for some of these. These have to be prod'ed or relisted separately. Recommend withdrawal of nomination. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn per Samir. Aplomado - UTC 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because of the group listing. There is absolutely no good reason to list 40 articles as bulk on AfD. Relist separately, and maybe some will go, but no way can anyone vote to kill 40 articles sight unseen. --Deville (Talk) 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So out of genuine curiousity, what is the point of the "multiple entries" section of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion?" Should there be a limit of entries listed in such a method? I did it this way because I thought it was the proper method. Aplomado - UTC 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.