Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goon shower

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 --JForget 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goon shower

Extensive original research. None of the references establish notability. Alksub 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are Wikipedia and "DrinkingGameRules.com". No evidence of notability. Powers ^T 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yeah...um...... WP:N and WP:NFT. - Rjd0060 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO DELETE : Legitimate term supported by 4 sources... more to come as found!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those sources don't even mention this game. Some of them are concerned with another game that involves the same drink and some of them are concerned with the drink itself. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MADEUP. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sources do not back up what is stated. spryde | talk 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to be joking if you think those sources for the most part dont back up what it said... this is beginning to look like a witch hunt, making up things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should not do this but what the hell, it is 6am and I am out of coffee...

Ref 1. We don't use WP as a reference.

Ref 2. No mention of goon, pouring stuff on your head, etc. Not relevant.

Ref 3. No mention of goon, not a reliable source, not relevent.

Ref 4. See 1

Ref 5. Not a reliable source. Relevant but not verifiable.

Based on the above, I stand by my comment. Allow me to go comment on the other 'Goon' AfD... spryde | talk 11:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah then we better close this place up, because a great deal of entries have the same faults with them! The fact is a goon shower is a word used by people, not a 'friends' thing, its a word used by a reasonable amount of people. Hell on the advice of a friend Ive even added origins to Spain, which is legitimate. This seems like nitpicking what is a great entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply this goon shower business is making me excited. ever heard of a golden shower? is this sort of the frat boy equivalent? basically your entry is lame as is. if you're certain this article belongs, why not listen to the feedback you've received and make the necessary changes in order to establish its legitimacy? no sense in defending yourself against spryde when the claims are true. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability to start with. This should have been reviewed before the article was listed because it helps avoid situations like this. the time you've spent trying to negate editors and their arguements should be spent either fixing this article or finding a new subject that would be culturally/intellectually suitable. If you want this article to be a keep do your reading, make the changes, and stop being silly. True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. (also, it's boring)True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up, unreferenced, all of the above... - Eron^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard issue frat boy drivel. - Richfife 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at four in the morning in the frat house under the influence of far too much alcohol and other intoxicants. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Fox. JavaTenor 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no reliable sources to back this article up. Pastordavid 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this 'source' argument is that many articles listed here have even less sources or worse yet, NONE, yet they aernt deleted. While because this is a relatively new term, so its difficult to source, we make an exception to the rule and decide to delete it (mind you the related concepts HAVE been sourced, any disputing this is jus ridiculous). Im seeing a distinct lack of consistency here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 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.