Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Fortyhands (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fortyhands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are either unreliable or do not mention the subject at all. A search only found unreliable blogs, listicles of "fun party games", seemingly self-published "games for adults" books, or tangential name-drops in works of fiction. Previous AFD from 2011 withdrawn due to passing name-drops in magazines, but these do not seem to be substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not even sure what notability criteria would apply to a topic like this, but I can't imagine that there are any that it meets. If not outright deleted, it could possibly be merged into Drinking game. BD2412 T 00:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• At some point since 2010 the reference toISBN 9781439156315 has been removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The few passing mentions and frat-boy level coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much found for sourcing, the New York Times surprisingly has nothing about it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2022 (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.