This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Originally listed as a speedy delete, the author asked me to put it on VfD instead. As I explained, the article's not encyclopedic - we don't deal in articles on schoolkid games. Dysprosia 07:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Because it's probably not notable or popular enough? Would be possibly keep-worthy if this was a global thing, but I doubt it. Dysprosia 08:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but I disagree with Dysprosia. We have plenty of articles on schoolkid games, see hopscotch, tag, leapfrog. This particular game sounds non-notable, I'd need some evidence to show that it isn't limited to a small circle of friends. And this particular article is written in the first person, in a jocular and distinctly non-encyclopedic style, so at the very least it needs a serious rewrite.--Woggly 08:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's what I mean, of course. Perhaps I should have been more explicit: non-notable schoolkid games, not all schoolkid games. Dysprosia 09:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That begs the question. Obviously something not notable shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, that is an implication of the very word "notable". This particular game receives 4,390 google hits and was featured on the Howard Stern Radio Show. anthony(see warning) 09:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well I'm not known for my eloquence, Anthony; perhaps one could s/notable/popular/ or s/notable/common/ or whatever. If it is well known then keep and rewrite. Dysprosia 09:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
250 Google hits when narrowed down to "Fuck Marry Kill Game". Maybe it is notable. Still needs a major rewrite. --Woggly 09:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Yeah, I played this in middle school. Then in high school. And still again in college, I'm sorry to say. This across the Midwest and the Northeast. May God have mercy. Wikisux 11:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Just a personal reminiscence at present. Unlikely to ever become an article IMO despite containing some marginally encyclopedic material, but I'm happy to be proved wrong on this. Someone who thinks it's possible to make an article of it should have a go, then one of us is sure to learn something. No vote right now. Andrewa 14:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert for the website. - if you must keep remove the website link - Tεxτurε 15:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep--valid piece of culture. Also keep website, but do not discuss it in the article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 16:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Guess I missed out on an important rite of childhood passage. I thought it was nonsense at first, but if it's a legit topic, blow this mess clear out of the water and replace it with the kind of quality that rock paper scissors got. - Lucky 6.9 18:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs work, but sounds like a fair number of kids did or do play it, even if I never did. Although I have to say the author has displayed very poor decision making in his Charlie's Angels choices. Everyking 19:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Either delete or keep and totally rewrite, removing the first person perspective. -Seth Mahoney 19:31, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
Rewrite or delete. Denni☯ 03:12, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
Keep. Very unpleasant (O tempora, O Moses...) but apparently real. Rewriting desirable, but I can't think of any good reason at all to delete it other than wishing it weren't true. (Do we have an article on death pools yet?) Dpbsmith 00:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) P. S. It does not read to me as a promotion for the web site; in fact it suggests that the website versions are poor substitutes for the real thing. IMHO that's needed to depromotionalize it is to remove the name of the specific website from the main text of the article.
