Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Three
- Mr. Three was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three (relist nomination).
I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't find this to be worthy of deletion at all. --Yath 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot find this information on any page that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. We don't keep that sort of thing. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Michael 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn;t appear to be at all notable (and it has too much maths to be a good drinking game :)) ViridaeTalk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, another unverifiable drinking game. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the prior AFD discussion, where the game was found documented under another name. (This renomination is an example of why it is always best to add sources to the article in AFD discussions.) Uncle G 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case, I would readily change my argument to keep if sources are added. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then here you are, it was listed as Three Man in The Best Drinking Games Book. I thought we had moved it to its verifiable title, but apparently not. Also, keep, bad renomination considering the evidence cited at the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the prior AFD discussion was not in the usual place or linked to from the notice on the article's talk page, and that even the second time around you haven't actually cited the source in the article, it's somewhat unfair to characterize the renomination as bad. The root cause of the problem here is failure to cite sources in the article. You're not citing sources in the article, either. Please learn to cite sources in articles. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. This one certainly wouldn't have be renominated if you had actually added to the article the source that you found when the article came to AFD before. Uncle G 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Easily verifiable articles brought to AfD are bad nominations. I stand by that. As I said in the other discussion, when 30+ articles are brought up last time around, and you spend hours doing research to find the verifiability for them, you're gonna miss a couple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not an easily verifiable article, as explained above. And the last time around this article was nominated individually, not as part of a collective nomination of 30 articles. In the prior AFD discussion, you failed to cite the source that you found, in the article. The cited source was hidden away on a hard-to-find AFD page, rather than in the article. As I said before, the blame here does not lie with the nominator, but with the editor who found a non-obvious source last time around, but didn't cite it in the article. Accusing the nominator of making bad nominations is poor form, given the circumstances. Uncle G 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree. It's not hard to look up drinking games at Amazon or Google Books, and if a source is missed here and there when you're trying to save 30 articles from deletion, it happens. The blame, by design, cannot lie with the nominator, as there's no requirement for the nominator to do anything other than spend the time doing the AfD. Considering the situation, we disagree on what's poor form here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not an easily verifiable article, as explained above. And the last time around this article was nominated individually, not as part of a collective nomination of 30 articles. In the prior AFD discussion, you failed to cite the source that you found, in the article. The cited source was hidden away on a hard-to-find AFD page, rather than in the article. As I said before, the blame here does not lie with the nominator, but with the editor who found a non-obvious source last time around, but didn't cite it in the article. Accusing the nominator of making bad nominations is poor form, given the circumstances. Uncle G 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Easily verifiable articles brought to AfD are bad nominations. I stand by that. As I said in the other discussion, when 30+ articles are brought up last time around, and you spend hours doing research to find the verifiability for them, you're gonna miss a couple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the prior AFD discussion was not in the usual place or linked to from the notice on the article's talk page, and that even the second time around you haven't actually cited the source in the article, it's somewhat unfair to characterize the renomination as bad. The root cause of the problem here is failure to cite sources in the article. You're not citing sources in the article, either. Please learn to cite sources in articles. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. This one certainly wouldn't have be renominated if you had actually added to the article the source that you found when the article came to AFD before. Uncle G 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then here you are, it was listed as Three Man in The Best Drinking Games Book. I thought we had moved it to its verifiable title, but apparently not. Also, keep, bad renomination considering the evidence cited at the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case, I would readily change my argument to keep if sources are added. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Changed to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Article meets WP:V. Please explain further? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, yes, glad to: There are as of this moment zero sources of any kind in this article, let alone reliable published ones. It even has a tag that says so. As such, it appears to me that the article does not meet WP:V in a rather textbook manner. Sandstein 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Update: Ah, I get it now, you mean to refer to the sources cited in this and in the previous AfD. Well, the article itself still fails WP:V. And, sorry, it supposedly being mentioned under another name in a book of drinking games could meet WP:V, but I don't see any indication of even minimal notability. Sandstein 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is, in fact, that it's not notable, not that it's not verifiable. Given that the game is detailed in a published book, could you explain how it's non-notable? I, for the record, have no problem moving the article to the proper name, but to say it's not notable seems weird. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm in the telephone book. I even wrote a (non-self-published) book and co-authored another. I'm still not notable. Put differently, not everything that's in a book is necessarily notable just for being in a book. It might well be, but if it were, shouldn't we have, say, some media mentions or some Google hits? Come to think of it ... it does have many Google hits. So a case for verifiability and notability can probably (barely) be made, and it appears that more than five people in the world play this game, although you still wouldn't know this from the article itself (as per Uncle G above). Switching to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article being poor at the moment (and I'll do some work on it again later tonihgt) isn't an automatic reason, but I'm glad you changed your mind. For the record, I think that if you've written a non-vanity press book, you *are* notable enough, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm in the telephone book. I even wrote a (non-self-published) book and co-authored another. I'm still not notable. Put differently, not everything that's in a book is necessarily notable just for being in a book. It might well be, but if it were, shouldn't we have, say, some media mentions or some Google hits? Come to think of it ... it does have many Google hits. So a case for verifiability and notability can probably (barely) be made, and it appears that more than five people in the world play this game, although you still wouldn't know this from the article itself (as per Uncle G above). Switching to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is, in fact, that it's not notable, not that it's not verifiable. Given that the game is detailed in a published book, could you explain how it's non-notable? I, for the record, have no problem moving the article to the proper name, but to say it's not notable seems weird. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, yes, glad to: There are as of this moment zero sources of any kind in this article, let alone reliable published ones. It even has a tag that says so. As such, it appears to me that the article does not meet WP:V in a rather textbook manner. Sandstein 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Update: Ah, I get it now, you mean to refer to the sources cited in this and in the previous AfD. Well, the article itself still fails WP:V. And, sorry, it supposedly being mentioned under another name in a book of drinking games could meet WP:V, but I don't see any indication of even minimal notability. Sandstein 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article meets WP:V. Please explain further? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Coredsat; two AFDs to focus the attention of those who want it kept and all we have in the way of verifiabiliy is The Best Drinking Games Book Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else are you looking for? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else ? I'd like the article deleted, thanks very much, as it should have been the first time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be deleted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the only source you can find is a published list of drinking games of uncertain provenance (how do you know the compilers didn't add some to make up the numbers ?). Do you think there was any sort of editorial oversight, or a review committee, that scrutinised the contents ? There's a reason why WP:RS and WP:V are joined at the hip, and this is it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we know some weren't added? Because we can do a search for the games and see if they're discussed elsewhere, which this one is. I see nothing to suggest that this isn't reliable, and it's absolutely verifiable, so i'm not sure what your protest is at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the only source you can find is a published list of drinking games of uncertain provenance (how do you know the compilers didn't add some to make up the numbers ?). Do you think there was any sort of editorial oversight, or a review committee, that scrutinised the contents ? There's a reason why WP:RS and WP:V are joined at the hip, and this is it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be deleted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else ? I'd like the article deleted, thanks very much, as it should have been the first time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else are you looking for? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 13 August 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.