Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock

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 Redirect to Rock-paper-scissors#Additional weapons. I don't see any good reason to keep this short article, already mostly duplicated in the Rock-paper-scissors section on Additional weapons, as a standalone article. I am therefore redirecting to that section. Any sourced content not yet present there is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock

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

This gets a full paragraph in Rock-paper-scissors#Additional weapons. It's not notable enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's correct. So it's a catchphrase/game on a TV show--that doesn't make it notable, esp. since all the hits I looked at were chatty, unreliable, mere mentions, etc. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I heard about it somewhere and came here to look it up. don't delete.

Redirect to Rock-paper-scissors. Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rock-paper-scissors. Deletion is inappropriate as it's a valid permeation of the game and should be documented. I'd argue that it meets GNG but it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Simply redirecting would lose content. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sourcable but barely notable expand of rock paper scissors, so perfect time to merge (with some trimming of details, like we don't need the blow-by-blow of which beats which when a diagram can do that). --MASEM (t) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is reasonable under the circumstances. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge is the best way forward. Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence beats opinion. The topic is notable per the WP:GNG as it is specifically discussed in detail in multiple papers including:

A golden point rule in rock–paper–scissors–lizard–spock game
Cycles, Diversity and Competition in Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock Spatial Game
The Real Story (and Some of the Math) Behind the Famous “Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock” Game
A Modified Rock-Paper-Scissor Game with Augmented Reality
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock: Two-Person circulant Games

Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets GNG. The first cite supplied by Andrew is extremely solid. The others less so. But combined with other sources, it's above the bar. Keep. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2014 (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.