Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis game

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 penis. Um, wait, I'll try that again... :x

The result was a slight keep; reliable sources have been found over the course of this AfD, e.g. by Edison and Kizor, that seem to satisfy notability guidelines. krimpet✽ 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penis game

Penis game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This page survived a VfD, and it was the funniest VfD i ever saw, but Wikipedia has grown up a little since then. Whether the game is real or not, the article doesn't have anything that looks like reliable sources. Call me a boring bureaucratic PENIS, but i think that it should be tested at an AfD discussion again. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Sources I can't search for right now, but isn't it clear that this game is extant and quite widespread? --Kizor 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)c
  • Yeah, this is going to be difficult to source. But, I mean, everyone knows what it is. Why doesn't someone write about it for a reputable paper or something? Oh yeah... now I remember. matt91486 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have to agree, WP:NOT and no reliable sources make this an article that will have difficulties in staying erected on Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This game can't possibly be the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete We don't need this kind of stuff on the Free Encyclopedia. -- Carerra "I help newcomers! 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. The closing admin should discount any !votes based solely on a dislike for the subject material of an article. notability should be the guiding principle. Edison (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Have the participants of the previous VfD from nearly four years ago been notified of this discussion? I would like to hear from them, individually, as to why they near-unanimously argued to keep this. RFerreira (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know of an easy way to contact that many users, and i hope nobody invents one. If they give a damn about this article, they should have it on their watchlists. You are welcome to contact them one by one. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the unique circumstances here, where we had an overwhelming number of respected, long-term editors involved, including admins, arbitrators, our Wikimedia UK press agent, and the Wikipedia Featured Article Director, I honestly would like to give them all the opportunity to provide their insights and have the opportunity to learn if their perspective on this article has changed over time. RFerreira (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment. It turns out that I could spare the time for a non-conclusive yet inexplicably disturbing Google search. (The VfD says there are a lot of variants, by the way - people such as Brits and Germans should try to find sources using their local terminologies. This demonstrates the existence of the "Bogies!" game.) This paper features the game on page 66 by the document's numbering. Yes, it cites Wikipedia. This article. Bear with me here - I believe I can build an argument that is not an abomination. His quotation does not expect academic respectability from this site. It recites the nature of the game as common knowledge, in little enough doubt to make the quote representative of the uses of the game. That's how I get away with this in my own writings. It makes the paper no less credible than if the author had described the game his own words. Possibly slightly more credible, since he instead chose a more preferable option.

    This and this are not relevant to the issue, but will likely still be of interest to you, you freaks. This too.

    Sentiments that this should be deleted for being a silly or stupid subject are likely inescapable, and suggest that we should also decimate our coverage of clowns. Additionally, I take an interest in editing philosophy and am open to arguments that this should be deleted for harming our reputation or opening us to ridicule, as long as those arguments are internally consistent by explaining why we should bow to this particular bit of external pressure while ignoring the three hundred thousand people who want us to remove our images of Mohammed, or if we shouldn't ignore them, how making public opinion a critical inclusion criteria on one of the ten most visited websites on the planet would not bring the whole place crashing down in one of the most gruesome defeats of the Information Age in a matter of weeks. --Kizor 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and thank the Wikigods that we're all apparently a lot smarter and more mature than we were in 2004. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Clowns... --Kizor 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I admit I do not like this article, and I have never heard of the game. But Wikipedia is not censored, and "liking" something is not a requirement in the notability guideline. A Google News archive search [1] shows a few refs which have substantial coverage of this game. Some refs are not about this innocuous inanity, but are inappropriate touching, comparison of equiment, or indecent exposure. But very much on topic are [2] , [3] [4] (Do campus papers count for satisfying "multiple reliable and independent sources?"). Since variant versions in other countries/languages are claimed to be part of the article, there could be additional references. The BBC [5] and a paper in Wales [6] had some coverage of "Bogey game," but BBC talking about a BBC program is not very "independent." (edited) Edison (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment On reflection, I think the discussion of this in college newspapers at widely varying locations satisfies WP:N. Previously campus papers have been discounted somewhat as proof of notability of campus organizations at their location. That is not the case here, since they are talking about something in the general culture, and would not be exercising favoritism as for a campus chorale group. They doubtless are freer to discuss such a thing than most papers of general circulation would be. Edison (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the variants, it appears that the "Bogies!" version was a recurring part of the British TV show Dick and Dom in da Bungalow, popular beyond all reason and awarded, and ranked highly on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. The show provides a highly verifiable and prominent source. Everything was running smoothly as thousands of people poured into Sheffield city centre... then children randomly began shouting "bogies" at the top of their voice. Within seconds, as the sunlight faded and the temperatures dropped, the sporadic outbursts became a uniformed, and slightly worrying chant. --Kizor 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - how many of the delete votes would be switched if we found proper sourcing? A lot of people are just seemingly disgusted by the existence of the article. matt91486 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not disgusted by silly and funny children's games. I proposed the AfD because because of almost zero sources. And let's face it - simply googling "penis game" is not Safe For Work or for a public University computer room.
So yes, improving the sources will lower the motivation to delete the article. Russian mat, for example, is extensively used in Russian school-children's rhymes, and these rhymes have been documented in books, so it's perfectly OK to discuss that on Wikipedia. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I understand the nomination, sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like that; a couple of the deletion comments by users have been along the lines of talking about maturity. I was just wondering if those users in particular would change their votes with credible sourcing. I personally haven't voted keep or delete yet myself for the same reasons you started the AfD. matt91486 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While I can vouch that the game most certainly exists, it doesn't bode well that the article has been tagged with a request for reliable sources since 2006. However, if the article does get deleted, I don't think we should "salt" it. The fact that it's silly does not disqualify it from being in Wikipedia. If the subject is ever sufficiently sourced (instead of using original research), it ought to be included. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Check the logs. It was deleted for the majority of that time. --Kizor 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, I changed the ref tag from Oct 06 to Feb 08, since the article was summarily deleted in Aug 07 and restored as an objection this month. The former date is technically accurate, but is not representative at all of the article's degree of neglect and fixability, which is what ref tags are commonly used to determine. (This was also because people without a handy "delete" button would have no way to easily check the article's log entries and no reason to think they should, thus proving that I'm an idiot since there's a "logs" link at the top of this page. Then again, when was the last time you noticed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?) There's some indication that the "bollocks" variant is popular in UK festivals, and The Observer might support that in noting that Saturday in 1995, when the entire eastern campsite erupted into cries of 'Bollocks!' for an hour from 3am. And while we're being this thorough, does anyone have access to this article? --19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the multiple third party sources cited by Edison and others. I too believe there is sufficient WP:N to sustain an article, this simply needs to be flagged for rescue. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - (I've discussed not stated a position yet). I think now, we've got enough to work with sourcing wise, to make it verifiable anyway. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


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.