Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (Life)

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.

[edit] The Game (Life)

The result was speedy delete by NawlinWiki (WP:CSD#G4). Non-admin closure. KnightLago 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Game (Life) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Un-notable theory. Most of it is nonsense. Also, it represents most of it as if it were true. See WP:UNDUE Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as re-creation. Same concept formerly deleted as The Game (game) and a dozen similar titles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Isn't this a clear G1 and A1? --Goochelaar 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And, the only reference is an article from Uncyclopedia... --Goochelaar 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - There are currently four different sources on the article. There are more available, but they could not be added due to the Wikipedia spam filter thinking they were blocked links, possibly from the previous six debates over this article (which hold some very good points as to the keeping on it).--Jamie.johnstone 12:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - The Uncyclopedia reference has been removed as well, as such removing any "doubt" brought up by citing such a source.--Jamie.johnstone 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure Q T C 11:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is presented in a way that identifies it as a cult-game. The game, as can be seen around the internet, is not a localised phenomenon, and this article was created in order to inform those interested in cult theories of this well-existing game and idea. If required, the article can be edited to make the information less imperative and more obvious to those who do not read the introduction, that it is an analysis of a cult idea and not an instruction for them.--Jamie.johnstone 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The use of Uncyclopedia as a source was included as Wikipedia likes to have sources for articles (completely understandable). Although the information on Uncyclopedia is partially posted as humour (as Uncyclopedia allows you to do this legally), the article does include factual information that does apply to those who subscribe to theory explained in the article. I believe that the debate behind this article could be applied to any religion (from a purely non-believing point of view) as there is no scientific proof or sources behind the theories explained in them.--Jamie.johnstone 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As a source, and additional information , I would like to suggest the following website: http://www.lose the game.com/ (remove spaces)

Unfortunately, this website is considered Spam by Wikipedia and as such was not included in the original posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.johnstone (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per everyone except the article creator who of course wants to keep it. JuJube 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is currently being edited to include more sources and make the article more factual and less misleading.--Jamie.johnstone 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete WP:SPEEDY#G4 This is recreation of this, which went through the process (exhaustively). So tagged. Deltopia 12:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete has been contested, as discussed on the article's Talk Page - Talk:The Game (Life) --Jamie.johnstone 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • So what? PRODs can be contested, not speedy deletes, except by putting o a hangon tag and explaining why speedy deletion is inappropriate. You haven't proven that. Corvus cornix 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete WP:SPEEDY#G4, this is an out of process recreation of deleted material. This subject has been discussed at WP:DRV here and the conclusion by consensus was to keep deleted. KnightLago 13:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - as the original articles have since been deleted, I am not willing to contest them through a DRV as I do not know the content and cited sources, and so cannot positively comment on them. I was also unaware that this article had previously been created, hence the creation of this article. I would like to, through whatever process necessary, motion that this article replace the original one that was deleted as it has verifiable and well-spread sources. I understand that this is out-of-process, but would like to find out what the process is to either get the article restored in some way so that we can see what it originally stated, or have this article processed as a new, non-recreation so that the WP:SPEEDY#G4 infringement can be excluded.--Jamie.johnstone 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is a perennial request, see here. Unless there is information "published in sources which have some evident authority and gravitas" the article will most likely not be recreated. KnightLago 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I understand the problem with sources and such, but I find it disappointing that Wikipedia disapproves of knowledge that cannot be sourced from somewhere they deem "acceptable". Of course no "source which has some evident authority and gravitas" is going to publish information on the topic of this article, unless of course you count two newspapers (both with 20,000+ readers) and one of the largest radio stations in New Zealand (admittedly we are not a large nation, but still... "authority and gravitas" have to be taken in context), but then again, it is websites such as Wikipedia that are needed to get those sources published in the first place. There is not a great "repository" of information just available on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter, and they way information is dispersed makes it incredibly difficult to find much out about "The Game". The point of creating this article was to generate one main, endorsed, supported and sourced article that collated all the various information, from the internet and in the real world, that allowed people to collaborate to discover more about a phenomenon that has been around, supposedly, for over 10 years and has popped up everywhere from America to New Zealand, to the Middle East.
I have read through a lot of the discussions over the various articles that have been posted regarding this, and there are a lot of people who find it incredibly disappointing that there is no longer such an article. Why? Because it is a true thing that is happening out there, and because of the lack of information, it is not getting recognised. And from what I can see, the only reasons you have managed to bring up so far are that there are not enough verifiable sources that cite this, and that it is a re-creation of a previous article. Well, why not let this version live on so that people can learn about an amazing cult that has been around for a substantial amount of time? Meh... --Jamie.johnstone 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Addition - Also, from the strong debates that have been going on from all the hundreds of people who are contesting the deletion of such articles, and the mammoth six deletion requests that have previously been battled out, they all must represent some kind of merit in the value of the article...--Jamie.johnstone 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I again realise that my previous statement may make you think instantly of WP:NFT but it is known as a fact that I did not make up The Game, nor did anyone in my school. It was made up by somebody a long time ago, as stated in the articles body and I decided to create this article when someone who was interested in learning what The Game was could hardly find any information on it through the internet. His first stop was to check Wikipedia, but of course, he could not find it and so it was suggested to me that I create it. Hence, the article and this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.johnstone (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment A lot of people wanting something is not a valid Keep argument. JuJube 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per everyone but article creator. Unsourced nonsense. Edward321 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, renamed to get around rules, editor has essentially threatened on the Talk page to disruptively recreate the article under other names in order to avoid WP:DRV, suggest sanction. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That is completely untrue and I respect Wikipedia's final decision. I am arguing the article's validity as per the AfD process but have not made a point anywhere that I will be at all disruptive. Thanks for twisting my words, Dhartung. --Jamie.johnstone 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G4 and defer recreation discussion to DRV Will (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as WP:POINT violation. How many times do we have to discuss this? Provide reliable sources. There are none. Stop recreating the article until you do. Corvus cornix 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh. Go ahead and delete it. I don't need to hear your rude and pointless arguments to prove your points that make no sense and totally contradict what Wikipedia is here for. So much for a community encyclopedia... Great. --Jamie.johnstone 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It always amuses me when people come in here with a certain outlook, and when their outlook doesn't match reality, they try to make it look as if it's Wikipedia's fault for not changing to match their demands. Corvus cornix 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I also find it amusing when those in power think that their outlooks are those that the whole world should follow - truly great people. The censorship and removal of information is far greater a crime than leaving it there for those who could be interested. Shame. --Jamie.johnstone 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The requirement that you put up or shut up has all to do with verifiability, and nothing to do with censorship. What a straw man argument. If this were a real, verifiable ... thing ... there would be no problem with having it here. We want more information at Wikipedia, but verifiability is non-negotiable. Corvus cornix 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Nice phrasing. How do you define real? And I understand the verifiability problem - I tried explaining that above but no, the abuse just keeps coming. Cheers. Anyway, better work to get on with so enjoy the rest of your week. --Jamie.johnstone 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Blimey, not this again. Delete as still being questionably sourced, and recreation of multiply deleted article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:15, 29 October 2007 (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.