Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose (drinking game)
- 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 no consenus, now you have to take a drink. —Doug Bell talk 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moose (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day. Inherently unverifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate the idea of the article, but it's got two references to outside Web sites, so some of it is apparently verifiable. Please, please overcome this objection. Noroton 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The links given would have to be reliable, of course. One is to a personal site literally titled "Eric's Web Sites" and the other is to a collection of cocktail recipes and drinking games. Since anyone can make a website, I don't consider these reliable. However, Mathmo has found some news articles below. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's one thing to verify the game exists, but the article is very detailed and we don't have proof about those details. YechielMan 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of the game can be proven from the links given. However, only a very brief overview of the rules can also be proven, not the incredibly detailed content currently present. Therefore, the content of the article is unverifiable.
Trim down and/or source the information, or, failing that, delete.-- saberwyn 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Following the addition of three websites where the subject is at least mentioned, I have slightly changed my view. I am now neutral on the outright deletion, but suggest to those who wish to keep/continually develop the article that they get some Wikipedia:Inline citations and Wikipedia:Attribution happening, and that everything from the "Signing Game" heading down to the categories goes 'poof'. -- saberwyn 10:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but article should be trimmed to reflect sourced information only. Anything extra that was simply "made up in college one day" should be removed. janejellyroll 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as made up in class. Philippe Beaudette 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Maustrauser 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but more sections need to be sourced. There are a couple in the article already, here are some more: californiaaggie.com statenews.com boiseweekly.com Mathmo Talk 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I'm surprised to see the rules in a news article, but I think that'll do. These are all about the top game. I'd be okay with blanking the second section and using these references to source the first. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a mention of the second moose in the article [1] --AW 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you guys really think this site (barmeister.com) is a reliable source? It just looks like someone's collection of drinking games and cocktails to me; it could even be the same person that made the Wikipedia entry. — brighterorange (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, an encyclopedia isn't going to mention Moose the drinking game, but there are a lot of bar, drinking and beer related websites with the first Moose on them. I've found a couple with the second, like that one. I'd be OK with deleting the second part though, if we can't find more. I think the first is fine. --AW 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you guys really think this site (barmeister.com) is a reliable source? It just looks like someone's collection of drinking games and cocktails to me; it could even be the same person that made the Wikipedia entry. — brighterorange (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a mention of the second moose in the article [1] --AW 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I'm surprised to see the rules in a news article, but I think that'll do. These are all about the top game. I'd be okay with blanking the second section and using these references to source the first. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding my nose at the smell of spilled, stale beer and recommending Keep, but only as per brightorange's suggestion of blanking the second section and citing the references in the article. Noroton 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mathmo's sources. --AW 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At present I'm not inclined to treat student newspapers as acceptable publications for reference, as the risk of including "stuff made up at school" is too high, and on that basis I don't see adequate referencing to support this article. WMMartin 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the problem with "stuff made up at school" was that either (a) the stuff was made up at one single ___location, so if it wasn't widespread it was unlikely to be notable, and (b) it was possibly a hoax or unreliably sourced for other reasons (accuracy, exaggeration, etc.). What we have here are three different campus publications — in California, Idaho and Michigan (I think it's Michigan). For me, that's enough. Noroton 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Boise Weekly isn't a student newspaper. Plus like Noroton said, I've played this in Washington, DC, and a Canadian guy taught it to me. So I think it's pretty widespread. --AW 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the request of AW I have reviewed these comments. I still don't feel we have "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other", which is our criterion for notability". One source, at best, though personally I feel the article cited is trivial - filler for a local newspaper - and that's not "multiple". Sorry, I'm not ( yet ) swayed. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Off Topic Request for Help. Reading what I just wrote, it looks badly punctuated to me, but I can't work out how to improve it. Any guidance would be appreciated ! Thanks in advance. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I still don't see multiple non-trivial sources. However, the one source that's left when the student newspapers are removed is an award winning one, so.... I'm actually wavering on this one, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear - if someone can come up with another non-trivial source I may be forced to watch my thinking change. Philippe Beaudette 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the request of AW I have reviewed these comments. I still don't feel we have "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other", which is our criterion for notability". One source, at best, though personally I feel the article cited is trivial - filler for a local newspaper - and that's not "multiple". Sorry, I'm not ( yet ) swayed. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (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.