Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknell Pong
From 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 delete. Too many problems with reliable sourcing.-Wafulz (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bucknell Pong
This variant of beer pong has 5 Google hits, 3 or 4 of which are on or about Wikipedia. The citations on the page are not really about Bucknell Pong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Also, a google search of articles where both "Bucknell" and "pong" both exist gets over 7,800 hits. Of course not all of these are about pong as played at bucknell, but a sizable number are.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term, just like Dartmouth Pong. That there is a different form of pong, that Bucknell has played a prominent position in it, and that Bucknell's versions are influential (more than any school other than Dartmouth) are the important factors. Using google search doesn't really address this, and it seems largely superfluous to the question of whether this deserves its own entry.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a drinking game, and it has no sources to show it exists, not even blogs. "Dartmouth pong" has 443 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term, just like Dartmouth Pong. That there is a different form of pong, that Bucknell has played a prominent position in it, and that Bucknell's versions are influential (more than any school other than Dartmouth) are the important factors. Using google search doesn't really address this, and it seems largely superfluous to the question of whether this deserves its own entry.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Except, of course, the sources that say it exists. And the ones that say it was instrumental in the formation of other forms of pong. And the sources that say it was very popular by the mid-80s. Except for those sources, yea... LedRush (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- They don't say it exists as a special variant. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except, of course, the sources that say it exists. And the ones that say it was instrumental in the formation of other forms of pong. And the sources that say it was very popular by the mid-80s. Except for those sources, yea... LedRush (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes they do. "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell." If he adapted Beirut from a form of pong that he observed at Bucknell, it means that Bucknell's version was both different and influential.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have added more cites to show a different version of pong was played at Bucknell and that it is notable.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Merge with beer pong if proper sourcing can be located Two of the sources in this article mention Bucknell University trivially, one doesn't mention Bucknell at all, one is a Bucknell message board, and the fifth source is a dead link. The existing beer pong article has a Bud Pong section and that could be reshaped into a variants section. Townlake (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have fixed the broken link, and all the cites back up the information as they should. Please see the previous discusstion on why this article can't be merged with Pong at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_22 , but basically the idea is that the rules of this game are too long, and the inclusion of Bucknell Pong would dominate the article. Right now people can go to Beer Pong to learn about the general history, and then go to the Dartmouth or Bucknell pages to learn more about specifics (for example, if they wanted to play the game themselves). That can't feasibly be done in a "variants" section. However, I think a variant section is a good idea for brief intros that will point people to the detailed rules and histories.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, made up game. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I made up one of the most ridiculously complicated set of rules on a lark, and went back in time to plant articles about that made up game. As per Wikipedia rules, please assume good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith .LedRush (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Bucknell Pong obviously exists, and the citations prove what the article says. Don't delete the article! We just played it at our reunion! Cmourikis (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The following was left on the discussion board:
- Bucknell Pong was already a long standing tradition when I was introduced to it in '94. Rules have only been formally documented recently which would explain it's lack of Google hits. For most of Bucknell Pong's existence, the rules were just passed on from player to player. It created such a following that tournaments have sprung up in PA, NJ, NY, and CT. I can't see how something with such a wide spread following doesn't warrant a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.204.234 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to agree with that anony saying that I have participated in tournies as far away as Shanghai China. Of course these events are not documented in newspapers, but the article does have enough cites to withstand deletion suggestions.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have added another two citations to the article which demonstrates its notability as a distinct game. I really believe that this game is something that traditionally wouldn't have showed up in written works as "Bucknell Pong" but as "Pong" or "Beer Pong", and so it's harder to get cites. While I believe that the article has enough cites to prove that the game exists and is notable, I have already found more cites in just the last couple of days. If we give it more time, the article will continue to improve, both in language and citations.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Two of those "sources" are links back to the Wikipedia article itself. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they cite to the article saying that this was how they played the game that they talked about. You seem to be under the false impression that sources need to be exclusively about a subject. Of course that is not right. Sources are used to back up specific statements. In this case, the sources are proof that Bucknell Pong was mentioned at the radio show's website. They clearly do that. Because they link to the Wikipedia article, it is an independent verification that they played this particular version of the game. Given the popularity of the show and the website, that link buttresses my argument that the subject is notable.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Two of those "sources" are links back to the Wikipedia article itself. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article should stay. It is well written, it describes the game exactly as I remember it, and it is a legitimate variant that I have seen played even outside of Bucknell's campus. The fact that it doesn't get a lot of hits on Google may reflect that it was popularized before the internet existed and was passed down by "word of mouth." Now that this Wiki article exists, I think that more people that played the game will back up what the article says. Give it a little time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I61164 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Great article. I will be able to use this to help reduce the number of disputes that I can run into during an evening of pong. I would get some dirty looks if I carry the rule book with me next time I play, so instead I will email them the Wikipedia link afterward to prove my arguments. Great work. I'm curious to learn more about variations that developed from the Bucknell pong. Thanks. 69.143.11.1 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Super
Why would anyone want to delete this article? It's a real game (I played it at Kappa Sig at Bucknell for 4 years), and it's a perfect documentation of it. Let them play, and let it stay!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.33.188 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Vote to keep the article, I went to Bucknell and this is the game I played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.3.144 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
MergeI feel it could be deleted per WP:NFT, but this apparent Bucknell "variant" of Beer Pong could become part of that article. There are no reliable sources which allow most of the details of this to be verified anyway, so it's a best case merge. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- While the rules of the game cannot be verified, that the game exists has been proven by several different sources and has survived scrutiny on the Dartmouth Pong page and the Beer Pong page.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Having read the continuing debate below, and despite the strong defense by LedRush, I'm now going for Strong delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete there are thousands of regional beer pong variants, no need to make a long list of non notable rule sets. Maybe some one should start a beer pong wiki. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Bucknell's pong was instrumental in the formation of beer pong...this well-accepted and cited. There is no long list of rule sets, just this one. In contrast, the Dartmouth Pong article, which has escaped deletion, is basically a list of many types of pong.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was not around when the Dartmouth pong page was up for deletion, but I probably would have voted "delete" on that as well, or at least merge into a page on variants of beer pong. Spell4yr (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Could you respond to why the cites concerning the importance of pong at Bucknell in the formation of beer pong (the most popular beer game in the US) are not suitable for you? Or are they?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was not around when the Dartmouth pong page was up for deletion, but I probably would have voted "delete" on that as well, or at least merge into a page on variants of beer pong. Spell4yr (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NFT,WP:V,WP:N While this game may exist, I am not convinced it is notable (beyond other variants of beer pong), and the links don't provide any verifiability that it exists. Fraud talk 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The links have proven beyond doubt it exists. It is mentioned as having been well-established by the mid 80's in one citations, it has been mentioned as being the popular version of the game on Philadelphia's leading morning show, and there are sources that credit it as the progenator of beer pong. I don't understand how people can still claim it doesn't exist in the face of all the evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- As per Spell4yr below, you still have not addressed the WP:NFT point raised. I am not doubting that the game may exist; I am curious as to whether the game is verifiable by reliable sources and notable in some form. The links as I last saw them do not appear to support that the game is the progenator of beer pong. In addition, wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals on games; it is a encylopedia. Fraud talk to me 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The only reference on the page that relates to Bucknell beer pong is a reference to a portal site, which links back to wikipedia. Could you please inform me of what sources credit it as the source of beer pong, other than a link to the article itself. Fraud talk to me 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have provide a list of what the sources say below. Two of them credit Bucknell as the source of beer pong.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete as Wikipedia is not a collection of something that some friends made up one day. Spell4yr (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, I realize that the game has been around for a while, but there's no need to collect the rules here. Put the rules on a personal web page and let people find it out that way. Wikipedia is not a collection of rules of obscure games that people outside of Pennsylvania have never heard of. Spell4yr (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- At first you want to delete it because it's made up, but then you concede that it's been in existance for a long time. I'm confused. The version of pong played at Bucknell is not obscure, in fact it is mentioned in many sources as influential in the formation of beer pong.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're not going to convince me to change my mind. Take away the rules, which is the vast majority of the article, and you don't have much of an article left. Put this on a personal page, hell, put it on Userspace, but I still see no reason why this should be given its own article. Notice how I said "made up one day," not "made up last week." Whether it was made in 2008 or 1958, I still see no notability for this article. Spell4yr (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that you have said that you cannot be objective on this issue. I could easily make an article on this without the rules, though I don't see why I have to. The notability here is that that beer pong at Bucknell is widely credited as being the progenator of beer pong. The game is still played by a large number of people.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I never said I would not be objective. After an objective analysis of the page and sources, I do not see notability. That's all. Please assume good faith and don't put words in my mouth that I never said. Spell4yr (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I have offended you, I am sorry. However, you said that I am "not going to convince you", despite the fact that I have provided indisputable evidence of the existence of a unique for of pong at Bucknell that was instrumental in the creation of beer pong and you have not allowed me to provide more. If no amount of evidence will convince you, to me, that means you cannot be objective. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by addressing my comments on the merits.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I mean (and this is my fault for not articulating this more clearly) is you're not going to convince me to change my mind based on the sources provided. If you can provide a reliable source (not a student newspaper or non-notable website) detailing this game and attributing this version of pong to Bucknell, I may be swayed. But with the evidence currently provided, I'm not going to change my mind. That's all I mean. I apologize if it seems I've not been acting in good faith, but I have tried to -- things don't always come out as intended when typed. Spell4yr (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I have offended you, I am sorry. However, you said that I am "not going to convince you", despite the fact that I have provided indisputable evidence of the existence of a unique for of pong at Bucknell that was instrumental in the creation of beer pong and you have not allowed me to provide more. If no amount of evidence will convince you, to me, that means you cannot be objective. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by addressing my comments on the merits.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I never said I would not be objective. After an objective analysis of the page and sources, I do not see notability. That's all. Please assume good faith and don't put words in my mouth that I never said. Spell4yr (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that you have said that you cannot be objective on this issue. I could easily make an article on this without the rules, though I don't see why I have to. The notability here is that that beer pong at Bucknell is widely credited as being the progenator of beer pong. The game is still played by a large number of people.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're not going to convince me to change my mind. Take away the rules, which is the vast majority of the article, and you don't have much of an article left. Put this on a personal page, hell, put it on Userspace, but I still see no reason why this should be given its own article. Notice how I said "made up one day," not "made up last week." Whether it was made in 2008 or 1958, I still see no notability for this article. Spell4yr (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- At first you want to delete it because it's made up, but then you concede that it's been in existance for a long time. I'm confused. The version of pong played at Bucknell is not obscure, in fact it is mentioned in many sources as influential in the formation of beer pong.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
this game has been played mutliple times outside of Pennsylvania. There is an annual tournament the weekend before Super Sunday, 3 years running, in Danbury CT. People outside of Bucknell have been exposed and have continued to play this. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmourikis (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't add anything to the discussion. I could attack obscure characters from 1990's video games as being stupid for a number of reasons, but if people are interested in reading about them and the info is well-cited, I don't see the problem.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you don't see the problem. You made the article. And no amount of meatpuppetry will distract us from this fact. JuJube (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what meatpuppetry is, but I assume you are again ignoring the issues and making personal attacks. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Meatpuppetry is basically registering additional accounts to tip the scales of a debate such as this one. Considering there are three accounts and one IP whose sole edits are on this page, this is strong evidence of meatpuppetry. I'm not accusing you of doing it -- I'm assuming good faith -- but this would suggest that one person is responsible for each of those votes. Spell4yr (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: What Spell4yr just described is actually sockpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is similar except that friends or other like-minded individuals are recruited to support or oppose something. —Travistalk 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Having people with different IP addresses and usernames is not evidence that one person is responsible....it is evidence that this article has generated interest in Wikipedia among people who usually don't have an interest. I assume their opinions will be discounted per Wikipedia policy, but suggesting that I am dishonest doesn't sound like you are assuming good faith. Your insuation doesn't make sense on a couple of levels: (1. how do you fake different IP addresses...perhaps it's possible, but I can barely figure out how to make my text bold on Wikipedia and still have troubles making correct citations; 2. If I had multiple accounts, wouldn't I have built up their credibility by editing other articles? Wouldn't I make them make some of the arguments that I am making here?) Your proposition doesn't assume good faith and fails the plausibility test.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Either way, the other "keep" votes don't help your case, and that's not your fault and out of your realm of control. Users without a vested interest in this article, with "Keep" rationales beyond "I've played it!", would strongly help save the article. And again, I am not accusing you of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, or any other form of puppetry. But the other "keep" votes seem like they're from the same person, or the same group of people -- not you, but somebody or some group. I strongly suggest you move the rules and whatever to userspace or onto a personal webpage. Spell4yr (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Having people with different IP addresses and usernames is not evidence that one person is responsible....it is evidence that this article has generated interest in Wikipedia among people who usually don't have an interest. I assume their opinions will be discounted per Wikipedia policy, but suggesting that I am dishonest doesn't sound like you are assuming good faith. Your insuation doesn't make sense on a couple of levels: (1. how do you fake different IP addresses...perhaps it's possible, but I can barely figure out how to make my text bold on Wikipedia and still have troubles making correct citations; 2. If I had multiple accounts, wouldn't I have built up their credibility by editing other articles? Wouldn't I make them make some of the arguments that I am making here?) Your proposition doesn't assume good faith and fails the plausibility test.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what meatpuppetry is, but I assume you are again ignoring the issues and making personal attacks. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you don't see the problem. You made the article. And no amount of meatpuppetry will distract us from this fact. JuJube (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I am surprised at the personal nature of the attacks against this article. I am also surprised that people are condemning it despite apparently not really understanding it or its sourcse. I will try to address your misinterpretations and misunderstanding individually so that you (and others) can make more informed decisions about a game that had been proven to be both unique and influential in the formation of other variants of beer pong and of obvious interest to many people.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, here's a concern. Unless I'm overlooking something (always possible), the last two sources in the article don't mention "Bucknell Pong" at all. I didn't look at any of the other new ones, but for our benefit, can you tell us how many of those sources specifically reference "Bucknell Pong"? With respect, the fact that those last two are Bucknell-focused sources and don't use your term doesn't really support the idea this is a known game - quite the opposite, in fact. Townlake (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- You're not missing anything: the last two sources were entered to show beer pong (and root beer pong) tournaments occur, not to prove the existence of a version of beer pong unique from others. I have other cites for that proposition. To be helpful, I'll list the cites (by number) and tell you what they're intended to demonstrate:
-
- 1. Show that pong with paddles started at Dartmouth
- 2. Show that there are different variants of beer pong (also shows that bucknell MAY have been a place where a new variant started.
- 3. Show that beer pong started in the 1950's (also shows that it was at dartmouth and that there are distinct variations on it.
- 4. Show that beer pong was played at bucknell in the late 1960's.
- 5. Show that Bucknell was well established at playing beer pong with paddles by the mid-1980's. It also shows that one especially popular form of beer pong was an adaptation of a version played at Bucknell. This proves, beyond doubt, that there is a "Bucknell Pong" and that it is highly influential.
- 6. Again, it shows that there was a unique form of pong played at Bucknell and that it was influential.
- 7. Show that the rules in the article are acknowledge to a wide audience of people as being those of "bucknell pong" and that it is notable enough for the listeners and fans of Philly's number one radio show.
- 8. Ditto 7, though I think the news article may have been pushed from the linked page....will search for later.
- 9. Demonstrates that international pong tournaments are held.
- 10. Show that pong can be played with root beer for underage players.
- 11. Ditto above, plus that the American Cancer Society doesn't find it necessary to distance itself from a pong tournament.
-
- I hope that this list is helpful in alleviating your concerns about the article.
-
- I would also like to say that the Dartmouth article survived deletion (and the beer pong (paddles) article is unchallenged) despite being a similar topic with similar sources.LedRush (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The sources I looked at just don't seem to establish in my mind the objective certainty they establish in yours. I have no doubt your intentions are good here, and I'm confident the game exists, I just don't see where it's gotten the level of independent and objective coverage necessary to support an article. Perhaps other editors will disagree with me; I'd certainly have no problem with that. Townlake (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I could provide literally dozens of sources to demonstrate that the game existed at Bucknell as a unique variant in the early 80's and was influential in shaping the more modern and dominant version of beer pong. However, I make the claim only once in the article, use two proofs of it here, and felt that it would be overkill to cite the same premise multiple times. Nor do I believe that wikipedia policy dictates that I do this. The cite is verifiable and suffient under wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Two of the sources (the ones from the radio show) are simply links back to the Wikipedia page. That's not "sources" or "references" for any of the content in the article. When I go to grad school for meteorology, I will not be able to write a research paper on tornadoes and use as a reference my paper on tornadoes that I'm writing. Spell4yr (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You analogy falls a little flat. If you had a draft (yet published) report on tornados, and another, independent and verifiable source claimed that one of the facts in there was true, you could use that source in your new, final draft. The real problem with citing back to here is that someone could change the rules and it would look like the people at the most popular radio show in Philly referred to a game they didn't. However, for the purposes of our conversation, that is not relevant.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Two of the sources (the ones from the radio show) are simply links back to the Wikipedia page. That's not "sources" or "references" for any of the content in the article. When I go to grad school for meteorology, I will not be able to write a research paper on tornadoes and use as a reference my paper on tornadoes that I'm writing. Spell4yr (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I could provide literally dozens of sources to demonstrate that the game existed at Bucknell as a unique variant in the early 80's and was influential in shaping the more modern and dominant version of beer pong. However, I make the claim only once in the article, use two proofs of it here, and felt that it would be overkill to cite the same premise multiple times. Nor do I believe that wikipedia policy dictates that I do this. The cite is verifiable and suffient under wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The sources I looked at just don't seem to establish in my mind the objective certainty they establish in yours. I have no doubt your intentions are good here, and I'm confident the game exists, I just don't see where it's gotten the level of independent and objective coverage necessary to support an article. Perhaps other editors will disagree with me; I'd certainly have no problem with that. Townlake (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would also like to say that the Dartmouth article survived deletion (and the beer pong (paddles) article is unchallenged) despite being a similar topic with similar sources.LedRush (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - absolutely no sources to indicate this beer pong variant is notable in any fashion. Arkyan 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please read the thread and the article before voting. I have explained several times that the game is notable both because of its wide use and because it is the progenitor of the most popular beer game in America. If you are going to discount my well sourced article, could you please explain why you think my explanations and sources aren't adequate? If beer pong is notable, how can the type of pong from which it was derived, and a game still widely played, not be notable?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- One - Please do not assume what I have or have not read. Two - I did no such thing as voting, I expressed my opinion. Three - It is not "your" article. Please read WP:OWN. Fourth - It's not that the sources in the article are inadequate, they do a fantastic job of sourcing information regarding "beer pong" and "Beirut". Fifth - Of the citations listed in the article, not a single one uses the phrase "Bucknell Pong". Claims that "beer pong" is a derivative of "bucknell pong" are extremely unteneble considering many of the sources discuss "beer pong" but none discuss "bucknell pong". Sixth - Being combative with each person who does not agree with your assessment of the situation is not helping to advance your position any. Arkyan 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for at least trying to address my points, though your condescending and personal attacks would be better omitted. 1. Ok, but I can only go on what you provide. If you give no reasons for ignoring sources and previous arguments, what am I to think that they are? 2. You voted for "delete" without stating why. No you are stating why, but becoming very picky with words. 3. Thank you again for being overly picky with words. I have not prevented the many edits to the article since I made it. It would reflect on you better if you could address my points and not red herrings. 4. We agree on one thing. 5. This type of statement again makes me think that you haven't read the enitre discussion. The term "Bucknell Pong" doesn't exist elsewhere because it is called pong there. Two sources (and many others available) say that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell." If he adapted beer pong from a form of pong that he observed at Bucknell, it means that Bucknell's version was both different and influential. Without using the name "Bucknell pong", this proves that there was a unique form of pong which was developed at Bucknell which later morphed into beer pong. 6. I have not been combative, despite that people have called me "stupid", accused me of lying, and ignored my comments. I have tried only to get people not to attack the article just based on the title and to honestly address my points. Please re-read above.LedRush (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did give a reason for my original recommendation, and that was due to the fact that the sources do not establish notability for "Bucknell Pong". None of them do. What you are doing here is a classical case of synthesizing a new concept out of different sources, a type of original research. The fact that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not used in the sources indicates that the authors of the article have "invented" the term themselves, yet more original research. This is not acceptable. In order for the sourcing to be considered reliable and for notability to be established, the sources need to unequivocably deal with the subject at hand. That the sources given require significant interpretation in order to come to the conclusion you have reached is, again, indicative that the article is essentially a form of original research and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Arkyan 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- This article is not original research and does not use synthesizing. "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." (from synthesizing). I am using only one source (though there are many, many others) to demonstrated that there was a unique form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong was invented. When a source claims that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell" it leaves no doubt there was a form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong came. This cannot be disputed.LedRush (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- If "evidence" containing phrases like "supposedly admitted" leaves no doubt and is indisputable, as you state, then we clearly have very different definitions of what is and is not a reliable source. It is my opinion and observation that this article is indeed drawing conclusions from multiple sources, is indeed introducing original research, and does not meet inclusion criteria. I am not required to convince you otherwise, and your argument fails to persuade me that my position is wrong. I leave the rest up to the closing administrator. Cheers, Arkyan 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as I have stated many times, the proof of a unique form of pong at Bucknell is massive and can be found on numerous of sites that claim to know the history of beer pong. Perhaps this quote from one of the article's cites is better for you: "However, according to an email written by Stubby, he had actually discovered Beirut in its incipient and crude version at Bucknell University in 1983." This is ONE source which proves that verifiable sources indicate that beer pong was adapted from a form at Bucknell. I guess if statements of fact made many, many cites don't convince you, nothing will. And I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am trying to make sure that people passing judgment on the article have a fair assessment of the sources and don't make assumptions or listen to unsupported statements.LedRush (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the deal. This article is titled "Bucknell Pong" there are no reliable sources that use that term, thus this is original research. If reliable sources say that beerpong did indeed evolve from a game played at Bucknell than a brief history should be included in a history or origin section in the main beerpong article. Just because there is a unique form of beerpong played at Bucknell does not mean that we need to cover its rules here. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't follow. "Bucknell Pong" is just a name for a type of beer pong, because "pong" already has a page. Instead of looking at the name, look at the substance of the article. Also, if you think the rules of this version are too much, why don't you suggest just putting a history of Bucknell pong (or Pong as played at Bucknell, seeing as that gets more google hits) article up.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that Bucknell Pong is a type of beerpong, it does not need its own article, there are thousands of regional variants. What makes the version played at Bucknell a little different is that some people point to it as the origin of modern beerpong (although this is disputed). That is why it should be mentioned in the beerpong article which it already is. It does not need its own article, and neither does Dartmouth pong, which I imagine will be deleted shortly. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dartmouth Pong has 2 orders of magnitude more Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- People should be able to go to the main beer pong article to find a general history and then go to the specific articles to find out more about the specific games. Every variant doesn't need a page, but ones from which pong was derived do.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dartmouth Pong has 2 orders of magnitude more Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that Bucknell Pong is a type of beerpong, it does not need its own article, there are thousands of regional variants. What makes the version played at Bucknell a little different is that some people point to it as the origin of modern beerpong (although this is disputed). That is why it should be mentioned in the beerpong article which it already is. It does not need its own article, and neither does Dartmouth pong, which I imagine will be deleted shortly. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't follow. "Bucknell Pong" is just a name for a type of beer pong, because "pong" already has a page. Instead of looking at the name, look at the substance of the article. Also, if you think the rules of this version are too much, why don't you suggest just putting a history of Bucknell pong (or Pong as played at Bucknell, seeing as that gets more google hits) article up.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the deal. This article is titled "Bucknell Pong" there are no reliable sources that use that term, thus this is original research. If reliable sources say that beerpong did indeed evolve from a game played at Bucknell than a brief history should be included in a history or origin section in the main beerpong article. Just because there is a unique form of beerpong played at Bucknell does not mean that we need to cover its rules here. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as I have stated many times, the proof of a unique form of pong at Bucknell is massive and can be found on numerous of sites that claim to know the history of beer pong. Perhaps this quote from one of the article's cites is better for you: "However, according to an email written by Stubby, he had actually discovered Beirut in its incipient and crude version at Bucknell University in 1983." This is ONE source which proves that verifiable sources indicate that beer pong was adapted from a form at Bucknell. I guess if statements of fact made many, many cites don't convince you, nothing will. And I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am trying to make sure that people passing judgment on the article have a fair assessment of the sources and don't make assumptions or listen to unsupported statements.LedRush (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- If "evidence" containing phrases like "supposedly admitted" leaves no doubt and is indisputable, as you state, then we clearly have very different definitions of what is and is not a reliable source. It is my opinion and observation that this article is indeed drawing conclusions from multiple sources, is indeed introducing original research, and does not meet inclusion criteria. I am not required to convince you otherwise, and your argument fails to persuade me that my position is wrong. I leave the rest up to the closing administrator. Cheers, Arkyan 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- This article is not original research and does not use synthesizing. "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." (from synthesizing). I am using only one source (though there are many, many others) to demonstrated that there was a unique form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong was invented. When a source claims that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell" it leaves no doubt there was a form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong came. This cannot be disputed.LedRush (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did give a reason for my original recommendation, and that was due to the fact that the sources do not establish notability for "Bucknell Pong". None of them do. What you are doing here is a classical case of synthesizing a new concept out of different sources, a type of original research. The fact that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not used in the sources indicates that the authors of the article have "invented" the term themselves, yet more original research. This is not acceptable. In order for the sourcing to be considered reliable and for notability to be established, the sources need to unequivocably deal with the subject at hand. That the sources given require significant interpretation in order to come to the conclusion you have reached is, again, indicative that the article is essentially a form of original research and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Arkyan 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for at least trying to address my points, though your condescending and personal attacks would be better omitted. 1. Ok, but I can only go on what you provide. If you give no reasons for ignoring sources and previous arguments, what am I to think that they are? 2. You voted for "delete" without stating why. No you are stating why, but becoming very picky with words. 3. Thank you again for being overly picky with words. I have not prevented the many edits to the article since I made it. It would reflect on you better if you could address my points and not red herrings. 4. We agree on one thing. 5. This type of statement again makes me think that you haven't read the enitre discussion. The term "Bucknell Pong" doesn't exist elsewhere because it is called pong there. Two sources (and many others available) say that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell." If he adapted beer pong from a form of pong that he observed at Bucknell, it means that Bucknell's version was both different and influential. Without using the name "Bucknell pong", this proves that there was a unique form of pong which was developed at Bucknell which later morphed into beer pong. 6. I have not been combative, despite that people have called me "stupid", accused me of lying, and ignored my comments. I have tried only to get people not to attack the article just based on the title and to honestly address my points. Please re-read above.LedRush (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- One - Please do not assume what I have or have not read. Two - I did no such thing as voting, I expressed my opinion. Three - It is not "your" article. Please read WP:OWN. Fourth - It's not that the sources in the article are inadequate, they do a fantastic job of sourcing information regarding "beer pong" and "Beirut". Fifth - Of the citations listed in the article, not a single one uses the phrase "Bucknell Pong". Claims that "beer pong" is a derivative of "bucknell pong" are extremely unteneble considering many of the sources discuss "beer pong" but none discuss "bucknell pong". Sixth - Being combative with each person who does not agree with your assessment of the situation is not helping to advance your position any. Arkyan 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the thread and the article before voting. I have explained several times that the game is notable both because of its wide use and because it is the progenitor of the most popular beer game in America. If you are going to discount my well sourced article, could you please explain why you think my explanations and sources aren't adequate? If beer pong is notable, how can the type of pong from which it was derived, and a game still widely played, not be notable?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete per the fact that it's something apparently either made up one day or simply non-notable, and to offset the rather obvious meatpuppetry. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- So anything "made up one day" can't be here? Does this include all games, sports, inventions, etc...? Your real point seems to be that it is non-notable, though it is the origin of the most popular beer games in America. Finally, please don't call me a liar, especially when I have addressed the issues above. It makes you look ignorant and malicious, though I hope I am misjudging you.LedRush (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you think replying to every single comment is going to get this article saved, you've got another thing coming. JuJube (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your helpful comments. I am merely trying to ensure that an administrator will see the counters to some of the comments here, many of which seem particularly personal or not particularly accurate.LedRush (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe you are misjudging me. I have not called you a liar, and accusations of ignorance and maliciousness fly in the face of WP:AGF. — scetoaux (T|C) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have called me a liar. You said that I was engaged in "obvious meatpuppery" despite my comments above. That means you called me a liar. You cannot engage in ad hominem attacks while making statements about the article which are false and then accuse me of not assuming good faith. People who have made polite comments have gotten polite comments from me. I would like to think that you could afford me the respect that you believe you deserve.LedRush (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most contributors that vote to keep this article seem to have a vested interest in keeping this article, and have edits that are solely focused in this AFD. Since it is from several different IP addresses and users with varying textual style, it appears clear to me that this isn't sockpuppetry, which would mean it is solely you. It appears instead that several people have been asked, as friends, to support you, and were told what to say. That is meatpuppetry. The fact that all but one contributor to this process that has voted to keep the article have very, very few edits other than those to this AFD is pretty damning evidence of meatpuppetry. — scetoaux (T|C) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I can answer this more completely than I have above. Anyway, thanks for calling me a liar in a more polite way this time.LedRush (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Most contributors that vote to keep this article seem to have a vested interest in keeping this article, and have edits that are solely focused in this AFD. Since it is from several different IP addresses and users with varying textual style, it appears clear to me that this isn't sockpuppetry, which would mean it is solely you. It appears instead that several people have been asked, as friends, to support you, and were told what to say. That is meatpuppetry. The fact that all but one contributor to this process that has voted to keep the article have very, very few edits other than those to this AFD is pretty damning evidence of meatpuppetry. — scetoaux (T|C) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have called me a liar. You said that I was engaged in "obvious meatpuppery" despite my comments above. That means you called me a liar. You cannot engage in ad hominem attacks while making statements about the article which are false and then accuse me of not assuming good faith. People who have made polite comments have gotten polite comments from me. I would like to think that you could afford me the respect that you believe you deserve.LedRush (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you think replying to every single comment is going to get this article saved, you've got another thing coming. JuJube (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So anything "made up one day" can't be here? Does this include all games, sports, inventions, etc...? Your real point seems to be that it is non-notable, though it is the origin of the most popular beer games in America. Finally, please don't call me a liar, especially when I have addressed the issues above. It makes you look ignorant and malicious, though I hope I am misjudging you.LedRush (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:V, WP:N, and probably others. Googling
"bucknell pong" -wikigenerates exactly two links, and one of them is a WAP interface to Wikipedia. I have little doubt that the game exists, but it doesn’t come even close to meeting the guidelines for inclusion in this encyclopedia. —Travistalk 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)- Oh, and per the article author’s own admission, “The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term,”[1] this article flies in the face of the notability and verifiability guidelines. —Travistalk 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you are ignoring my point. The sources are clearly verifiable under Wiki-guidelines. I have given numerous examples of the game's notability. I believe it is disingenuous to cling to the claim concerning "Bucknell Pong" as a term without addressing the common sense explanation I have provided.LedRush (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are entirely missing the point that many people are trying to get across to you: Take away your first source (NYT), which doesn’t even mention this specific variant of beer pong, and you are left with student newspapers, blogs, and other websites that do not meet Wikipedia’s policies for independent, verifiable, reliable sources. Like I said, I have little doubt that the game exists, but it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in this encyclopedia. —Travistalk 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you are ignoring my point. The sources are clearly verifiable under Wiki-guidelines. I have given numerous examples of the game's notability. I believe it is disingenuous to cling to the claim concerning "Bucknell Pong" as a term without addressing the common sense explanation I have provided.LedRush (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and per the article author’s own admission, “The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term,”[1] this article flies in the face of the notability and verifiability guidelines. —Travistalk 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am sorry, but I don't believe you are correct. The sources are independent, verifiable, and reliable by Wikipedia standards. The standards state that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The college newspapers may not be reliable to investigate Watergate, but surely college reporters' knowledge of beer pong are more authoritative than any other! On verifiability, the standards state [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Anyone can easily find my sources and see that respected college newspapers have reported on a college subject on which they are authorities.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (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.
