Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power hour

Add links
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 no consensus. The article does sport some reliable sources now, but as mentioned it does seem to effectively be the same as Centurion (game) and should probably be merged into some sort of article about endurance drinking games. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power hour

[edit]
Power hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article on a drinking "game" which consists entirely of a how-to. If that can be fixed you then have to overcome the fact that at least one person asserts that they are the owner of the term Power Hour and that our description of it infringes his intellectual property rights. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete take your pick of the following: a) possible copyright infringement b) no references or indication of notability c) it's essentially your standard WP:MADEUP article, but with a pretty template and informative-sounding terms such as "or an equivalent of 90 fl. oz." This should have been deleted a long time ago. ALI nom nom 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the copyright infringement thing is probably not an issue. They complain that our having a Wikipedia article of it is copyright infringement? There's not a good legal precedent for that. ALI nom nom 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) A description of something does not violate trademark rights. This article is older than that guy's company. Its notability is arguable, but the trademark infringement claim may make it more notable.mcornelius (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck do you come to that conclusion? ALI nom nom 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To a conclusion on which point? That trademark protection doesn't entitle someone to exclusion from public comment or that controversy can make something more notable?
  1. Others have already commented on this point, too, and I think we generally concur.
  1. The article on controversy begins "Controversy is a state of prolonged dispute or debate…" I would think it obvious. Although, I'm not claiming that it would make it significantly more notable. Just subtly more so.
I don't think most of the drinking games mentioned here are really notable, but if they're on here, and considered sufficiently notable, then this should be, too. mcornelius (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term is often used for things other than the drinking game but that's a case for disambiguation, not deletion.mcornelius (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic is a drinking game. The game has at least one reliable source NY Times 2005, possibly others. There's a likely NN company that's made a trademark case on the name, not a substantive enough issue to change whatever happens at AFD. A previous AFD was pretty much the same, and was deleted for "describing the game not why it's significant" and for insufficient sourcing to show notability. I can see two options - redirect to List of drinking games (if it doesnt need or merit a stand-alone article), or if there are more sources and a clear case it's a well known game, then keep. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article has been worked on since the nomination and now there are eight references: 1. An article in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which is obviously a WP:RS, but the article only mentions "Power hour" in passing. 2. An article in The Collegian, a college newspaper. Also mentions the term fairly briefly but does include a definition of it - I'm not sure it is a WP:RS, but probably. 3. A feature on Minnesota Public Radio's website; this qualifies both as coverage of the term and as a reliable source, in my opinion. 4. Article in New York Times which definitely qualifies as a reference for the term. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are about the trademark dispute, and 7 & 8 are extremely questionable as sources (and are unnecessarily repeated in the article itself). References 3 and 4 together are probably sufficient to keep the article, but at the moment there is too much emphasis on a couple of non-notable websites, refs 7 and 8 (but that's easy enough to fix.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to Redirect and merge to Centurion (game). These two games are essentially the same. The relevant and notable part of the Power Hour article is the health risks, which can easily be included in the Centurion article with its sources. The trademark dispute is not covered in any reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 23 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_hour&oldid=1138249223"