Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. I don't expect this to be uncontroversial. However, there are no sources for this game's existance. None. Seqsea and others have clearly demonstrated this. That, along with the majority of keep comments come from new or unregistered users, and that th e arguments for deletion vastly outweigh the arguments for keeping, lead this to be deleted.--Sean Black (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (game)

Note: Contrary to the title, this is actually the 3rd nomination

This is actually the third nomination. Links to previous nominations: September 2004 and December 2005. Both nominations included keep votes from established users, new users, and anons, and the closing admins have stood behind their decisions to keep. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (with editing) It should just be edited so that it doesnt contain original information and then kept. —This unsigned comment was added by Autophile (talk • contribs) 03:45, March 22, 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep It's a fun game, lots of people I know like it and it is a phenomenon that such thing is widespread like this. One may call it stupid or dislike it, but it is still a game, with consistent rules. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about a game being stupid or not. If you don't like, forget about it and don't play. —This unsigned comment was added by 201.19.27.186 (talk • contribs) 01:12, March 22, 2006 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep As much as I'd like to see this deleted, the previous AfD result seemed valid and the subject does seem notable, although I'm not sure how verifiable the notability is. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Changed my mind. The article is seemingly never going to get sourced, and that means it shouldn't be here. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, made up in school. This seems like a good opportunity to finally delete a troublesome article. Brian G. Crawford 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - alas, I've been trying to make some headway in the article, but at this point I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the {{original_research}} tag. As one editor said, "We have become the foremost source for information about The Game,"[1] and that's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. --phh 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and limit to barebones information about the rules. It is an extant game that has players and has somehow spread beyond just the original people who made it up in school. Most of the information in there is OR or just plain guessing (strategies, origins, criticisms/comparisons, thoughts on rule #2), but axe that and you have a nice introduction for people who heard someone talking about it and want more information. The article will never be Monopoly (game), but it's not the collective hallucination of its contributors, either. —Seqsea (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I just spent a couple of hours scouring LexisNexus, ProQuest, InfoWeb, and Google for anything related to the game. Only Google returns results and they are all blogs or forums. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is just a guideline): "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. [...] Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." From WP:Verifiability (which is a policy): "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. [...] For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. [...] And just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Wikipedia." While this article represents a unique case, continuing to allow it without any hope for sources is in direct violation of both guideline and official policy. I still stand by what I wrote above—the game does exist and is played—but that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Until it becomes popular enough to have more than a handful of hits on Google, it should remain the province of college dorms, high school homerooms, and blogs. —Seqsea (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with PHenry's concerns. The only way I've heard of this is by people pointing me to the Wikipedia article, so it does seem like we've become the primary source here. However, it's minorly notable so I don't feel confident to vote full-out delete. -- Mithent 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only was to keep this game notable is to delete it so we can forget about it, what a bunch of hog wash. Mike (T C) 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A common if stupid game. JoshuaZ 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is widespread, no matter how much you dislike it. (and damn it you made me lose). --Midnighttonight 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, double jeopardy. Haikupoet 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: something made up in school one day; sock supported. Jonathunder 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since you must be referring to one of the previous AfDs with "sock supported": Please do not use "sock" as an epithet for "newbie". Anon votes were properly discounted in previous AfDs anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This game is complete bollocks, but that's not really a reason for deletion (though it is a reason to pray for the future of our planet). If it's so widespread, transwiki the rules to Wikibooks. This article is basically nothing without them, so delete as {{db-empty}} --Rory096 05:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is frequently linked to from outside Wikipedia, including its URL appearing in an ad in MacAddict (for some reason). We'd be lacking in our coverage if we didn't have it. I'm okay with shortening the article to remove guessing and speculation, though. By the way, the title of this AfD is wrong: this is the 3rd nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't get this, WHAT does an article have to do to be kept around here? This is the third time already without any significant changes in the article's status. I'm not going to even bother coming up with reasons, there's plenty of discussion in the other two AfDs. AceMyth 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want the article deleted, I want it referenced. Can it be so hard to find a reputable source mentioning the phenomena (if it exists)? / Fred-Chess 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, although someone needs to find an old media reference, would make the article a lot more credible --MilkMiruku 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is 'the Game'. That's it: wiki is about knowledge, not about the Game being or not just a little stupid game. —This unsigned comment was added by 87.7.161.81 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep This is a genuine internet phenomonon that, by it's very nature, won't have an awful lot written about it. —This unsigned comment was added by 212.159.119.232 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep I play and I refer people to this page for new players. Keep it. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.170.119.106 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep May have been non-notable originally, but has grown into a genuine social phenomenon. Mister Five 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although the game does exist, I don't see this article ever being verifiable. It would be nice if we could document this social phenomenon, but I don't currently see an encyclopedic way of doing that. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable/nonverifiable. Mukadderat 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. There are at least two major websites which detail the game, and many more which reference it. Anyone voting delete needs to do their research.
  • http://www.losethegame.com/
  • http://www.forgetthegame.co.uk/

--Liface 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment One of these "major websites" is virtually empty (e.g., its list of "known players" consists in its entirety of "Dan"), and the other belongs to Kernow (talk · contribs), who is using it to lobby for votes in this AfD. --phh 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While verifiability is certainly an issue, it is notable. It is mentioned on many personal webpages such as here:http://imago.hitherby.com/archives/000862.php and as observed earlier was oddly referenced in an add. JoshuaZ 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - One of those major websites has an alexa ranking of 1,892,011 while the other has no alexa ranking. --Xyzzyplugh 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - It does not matter what the Alexa ranking of the sites are, it matters only that they exist. --Liface 23:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Actually, per comments below WP:UCS the game is notable, since everyone seems agree that it exists as a known phenomenon. So the above go to verifiability, and as others observed on gets that also from googling the phrase "I just lost the game." JoshuaZ 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep this game by this point. No question The Game is inane, however it is now an established social grace to admit loss. When one says "I lost" half the room -no matter what the social setting- understands and confesses losing as well. To delete this game would be par with deleting hopscotch (an equally pointless but renowned game). 70.226.183.238 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Nathaniel

  • Keep - It's been nominated many times, and kept then. I've encounted many people, from diverse backgrounds, who play the game. It's a widespread social phenomenon which deserves to be documented. --CannedLizard 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've defended the notability of this article through both of the previous A/VfDs, and on both occasions it was conditional that a lot of the crap be trimmed out of the article. Successive rewrites and re-rewrites have alternately removed and replaced a lot of it, and it's reached a point where there is no chance of ever salvaging it into a sensible article. I fully accept that the above argument is probably a case for cleanup rather than deletion, but a recent RFC attempt got nowhere. I just can't see this ever becoming viable. Right now, the article represents almost everything that is bad about Wikipedia; POV-pushing by both sides, massive piles of cruft flooding the article, chronic unverifiability (the very concept of the article means that a Google Test is meaningless) and breaches of almost any policy you could care to name. Weak Delete (only weak because despite the aforementioned flaws, The Game is a real phenomenon) unless all sides can come up with a solution before this AfD closes; which, sadly, seems increasingly unlikely. Kinitawowi 11:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • comment Note that additional sources have been mentioned above. Also, we can clean it up and then add a protect or semi-protect. I for one pledge to add it to my watchlist if it gets kept. JoshuaZ 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Additional sources"? I presume you're referring to those two websites. One of them is the website of User:Kernow, and guess what? It's now got a big message on the front that says "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons". 'Nuff said. Kinitawowi 18:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Sockpuppeting and votestacking attempts are not relevant as to whether the article should be deleted. That merely means that those votes should be discounted. JoshuaZ 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should such votes be discounted? I have put up this link to make visitors to my site aware of the AfD. A significant number of those voting Delete include The Game's lack of notability as a reason. Every vote for Keep, no matter where from, or what reasons they give, automatically dispute such claims of non-notability. There are almost 1000 players in the Cambridge Facebook group alone. Over 400 people have filled in their details on The Game Tree.
If voters that have come here from my site can provide good reasons as to why The Game article should be kept, then such views are just as valuable as anyone elses. As it says in the Attention box above, it is the reasons given, not the number of votes that counts. Kernow 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Many people consider calling "help" with an AfD an act of bad faith. This is why I placed the {{afdanons}} notice at the top of this AfD. You have to admit, "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons." Certainly sounds like an attempt to vote-stack. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it is an attempt to get more reasons for keeping this article. Kernow 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, I voted to keep and it seems like votestacking to me. JoshuaZ 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
How you voted is irrelevant. As it clearly says in the Attention box above "ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff". I am merely trying to get as many opinions about The Game as possible, so that the best decision regarding this article can be made. Kernow 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to court the opinions of people to vote Keep, not to get lots of wonderful new reasons that nobody has thought of for why this article should be kept. Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As some of you do not trust my motives for adding the link I will remove it immediately. Kernow 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although it appears a joke and lacks seriousness it is clearly a notable game. It's worldwide spread is reason enough to keep it. Maybe edit to the most notable information rather than the current extended version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAlec (talk • contribs)
  • Ultra Mild Keep How much time is going to be spent dragging this to AFD. This article does have an external reference on it, which already makes it more referenced then 50% of the last 10 articles I hit using Random. — xaosflux Talk 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Game is a very interesting concept and is played by an increasing number of people all over the world. The only valid argument against this article is its verifiability. However, the unverified/unsourced tag was added less than 3 weeks ago. This article has to be kept, with a clear tag telling people that it is currently unsourced, for enough time for a source to be found. Kernow 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And how long is "enough time"? This is the third AfD run in 18 months, and these criticisms were around for the first. 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Kinitawowi
My point is that the tag has been around for a very short amount of time. Without this, readers are unaware that the article requires a source, and this will significantly increase the time it takes to find one. Kernow 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And my point is that people have already been looking for information for eighteen months, without success. Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me make this clear: I don't want this article to be deleted. I would like to see this article filled with accurate, authoritative, verifiable information from a better source than a single fanpage somebody made about the Game. The problem is that no such source exists. As has been discussed, the leading source on the internet for information about the Game is precisely this article. As such, it violates WP:NOR and will always continue to do so. Nobody knows who invented The Game; I don't, you don't, and from the anecdote of Mike Codling or whatever his name is, he doesn't either. There is no verifiable rule set; that means that the article is going to be filled with every minor rule variation that can be thought of. That, and that alone, is my reason for voting for deleting it; not because it's non-notable, or even that it's unverifiable, but because it's so unauthoritative that it's always going to be a crap magnet. Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is, while rather stupid, a popular phenomenon and one that is increasingly well known. --El Zilcho 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reputable references, please. mikka (t) 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to say keep. If the question is just whether the game exists and is played by enough people to make it significant, then a simple google search for the phrase "I just lost the game" (with quotation marks) reveals how widespread it is. In fact, such a search reveals that by far the most common occurence of that phrase on the internet is in relation to The Game as described in this article. By nature of this game and the way it has spread, it's very unlikely that a 'source' in the usual sense is going to be found. Obviously this game has no historical roots that will be dug up. Even if someone were to step up claiming they invented the game, I very much doubt this would make a difference. Possibly if a prominent journalist wrote a news article about it then perhaps this would qualify, I don't know, but really I would argue that this is one topic that just won't have a 'source'. It is fairly obvious that this article has aided in the spread of The Game. Does that mean it should be removed? Absolutely not! It's irrelevant how it has spread, the point is that it does exist as the phenomenon described in this article. People have claimed that they used this entry as a reference when explaining The Game to others. Isn't that fulfilling its purpose as an encyclopedic entry? If someone asks for an explanation of a phenomenon or entity, pointing them to an encyclopedia entry or suggesting they 'look it up in an encyclopedia' is not an uncommon thing to do. 86.139.10.162 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A game that is well-known, not something made up at school one day, undoubtedly notable. Where in the policy is there grounds for deletion? Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but put a "lacking sources" template on it. I just spent a 5 hour drive with a bunch of college students where "I just lost the game" was said every 30 minutes. The game exists and it's interesting enough to write about. That said, the article has some dubious information. Until recently it claimed that in Brazil it was called "El Juego", but that's Spanish; in Portuguese it would be "O Jogo". – Andyluciano 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the 8th of February, User:Brabblebrex added the following "A link to this article has been displayed in an advertisement for OmniGraffle in MacAddict publications. [2]" [3] . On the 9th, IP 4.246.105.71 added "The Game is also mentioned in the same add in the March 2006 Macworld, page 8" [4]. Can anyone verify this information, and if so, does this count as a published source? Kernow 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, it doesn't; the advert isn't the source. The source is still the Wikipedia article. Nice try... Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Wikipedia Verifiability page does not discuss this seemingly unique situation whereby the only source refers to the article itself. The Game is refered to in a "reliable, published source" and this appears to be all Wikipedia requires as regards verification. Even if this is not the case, its appearance in two publications would definately weaken the "non-notable" argument given by a significant number of Delete voters. Kernow 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The ad does not mention the game; it mentions the existence of the WP article, just as User:Brabblebrex said. Here is an image of the ad. It's not the best, but you can see that it's a magazine, and that there is no context whatsoever for the link. As far as I'm concerned, citing this as a reason for keeping the article is the same as citing other articles on WP—it shouldn't and can't be done. We're back to having no reliable published sources. (Also, even if the advertisement did mention the game, I would have trouble calling an advertisement a reliable source.) —Seqsea (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I find it highly prophetic that the advert features the article as a redlink. ;-) Kinitawowi 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The ad does mention The Game. The fact it is within a link to Wikipedia is simply a way of telling people (that don't already play) about the rules. According to WP:V an article "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher". I assume MacWorld/MacAddict count as reputable publishers. I can't find any advice in the Wikipedia policies on what to do if the only published source refers to the article. This is a unique case and I feel your interpretation of Wikipedia policies is hasty. Kernow 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, By the definition of "The Game", it exists because people believe it does. Therefore, there should be no reason to delete something about something that exists. Eddie 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Using that logic I can create an article on anything I want, as long as I add the clause that the thing in question exists because I believe it does, and therefore the references to the 'Other Game' that appeared in the article should be reinstated. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (This user's 2nd edit.) The games existence is not being disputed. But there are other reasons, which are discussed above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. What about WP:UCS? We've lost track of Wikipedia's ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's existence, then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing any information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Wikipedia's true goal. Now, I understand that verfiability via citation of authoritative sources is a perfectly legitimate guideline most of the time, but obviously this is a special case. For one, I believe that given the circumstances, [5] would be a perfectly acceptable citation. --AceMyth 04:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I diagree. I am certainly happy to say that the game exists and a google search is a good citation of that. However, almost all of the information on this page remains (and will probabily continue to remian) unverifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this entry. I've come across this in multiple communities, in multiple cities. Although I'm sure a print encyclopedia doesn't have room for games of such triviality, it does exist in forms a significant number of people may come across, and so there's no good argument for deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.122 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 March 2006
  • This user's first edit.[6] --phh 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe this to be a noteable topic and a useful article. I believe improving the article is a far better solution than deleting it. (And if it makes you feel better this is far from my first contribution/edit [7].) Feelingscarfy 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - it's been nominated for deletion before, and was kept. Why will it be any different this time? There's more evidence to support its existence than before. Granted, Wikipedia may be the singular major source of information on it, but that is perhaps because of The Game's nature to be spread by word of mouth rather than through online means. I feel that IAR applies in this article's case because of common sense. There seems to be consensus among those who DO want the article to exist that the rules are accurate and correct. If the article's contents are, in fact, precise, then why should verifiability be an issue with such a minor article? I could understand verifiability being crucial with more complex topics, but this is much more trivial than the proverbial rocket science. brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • POV / Neutral Seeing as there seem to be a lot of new people putting their 2¢ in (including me), a quick summary:
    • Existance: "The Game" exists, seems to be the general concensus, though some would rather it not.
    • Accuracy: Is the content of the article correct, or is it (either wholly or in-part) hear-say and/or fabrication? Some of the content, while it may be accurate, reads like fiction or a good idea the author thought up/was told (Example: T-shirts with "The Game" on them), and are unverified by any of the references.
    • Suitability: This is the main point at issue; How suitable is it as content?
      • Does it meet the criteria of What Wikipedia Is and The 5 Pillars?
      • Are the sources verifiable? (and if so, are they reliable?) This links in tightly to No Original Research, as it is fallacious to have the Wikipedia article as it's own main source of information. Some feel that while there are external sites with information, they are tenuous. However, from the nature of The Game, it may be impossible to prove the validity of the content.
      • Is the article written from a Neutral point of view? Is it written representing The Game as either a good or bad thing?
      • Just because something exists and is widely "known", this in itself may be insuffient if it is Not Notable. For this we need to address what impact has The Game had as a memes and on other games, plus evidence of that impact.
Personally, while I find "The Game" irritating and do not play it, I do not doubt it exists. However, I do have doubts that has enough source credibility and accuracy. Overall? Neutral - I'll let the more experienced folk on here guide me in this. -Crocos 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; this game is simply real!! it is real dammit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick01424 (talk • contribs)
    • (This user's only edit.) Yes, we are aware of that. What about the other objections above? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable. I definitely heard about it quite some time ago. Ironwolf 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and can only be verified from hearsay and a few blogs, which means the article is creating a primary source, which is not allowed under WP:NOR. Robin Johnson 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This whole thing reminds me of one of those sci-fi situations where a person goes back in time to stop some disaster, and once he gets there, he takes some action accidentally causing it himself. He went back in time because the disaster had happened, but then he was the cause of it. If he hadn't gone back in time, it never would have happened. The disaster caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster which caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster.
  • We seem to be involved in a similar loop here. Of the 22,000 google hits on "I just lost the game", 13,000 of them also contain the word "wikipedia". People keep looking for sources for this topic. Of course we can't find any decent sources; we ARE the source. This topic became notable because of the wikipedia article, it is notable because of the wikipedia article, and now we must keep the article because the topic is notable. If we deleted the article, likely the topic would stop being notable, but we can't delete it because the topic is notable.
  • There are two major methods of deciding whether an article should stay, Notability and Reliable sources. Usually they go together, this time they don't. Half the people here are saying that we must keep this because it's notable, the other half that we have to get rid of it because we'll never get a reliable source. Looks like a stalemate. The loop continues. --Xyzzyplugh 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And that's why Wikipedia shouldn't create primary sources, which is why I say delete it. If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then. Robin Johnson 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has existed for well over a year, I personally have been playing since 2002. I have been contacted by a number of people that have been playing since 1998. Kernow 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No one's saying it doesn't exist. It does. They're saying no reliable sources documenting it exist. They don't. Robin Johnson 10:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of the lack of sources. I was refering to your comment "If anyone still remembers it in a year, maybe it'll count as notable then". Many people will still be losing The Game in a year and it is notable now. Kernow 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The very nature of the game makes it hard to document. It's a special case, and is clearly a social phenomenom, and thus, should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.41.111 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete -- patent nonsense. John Reid 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How is it nonsense? People do in fact play the game and the page explains the rules. JoshuaZ 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I, too, would like to hear your reasoning. brabblebrex 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and therefore there is no reason to delete an article that (accurately) describes a meme that is seen by many across the whole world, especially in the UK and USA. The fact that many people have not heard of it does not make it untrue/unreal/false/worthless - thousands of people seek Wikipedia for an explanation to this "game", and as an encyclopedia it is imperative that such an explanation is provided. Deletion of this article defies the entire purpose of Wikipedia, which (as I understand it) is to achieve an encyclopedia providing a detailed source of knowledge encompassing as many parts of existance as possible. The fact that this many newbies care enough to participate is testimony to how important this article is as a reference - does anyone honestly think people would bother to create an account on wikipedia just to vote in one article just because a friend told them to do so? Of course not. The fact that so many newbies have participated is, in my eyes, an indication of what Wikipedia is all about - a source of information to countless anonymous users who want nothing more than a source of reliable information about things that affect them. Do not take that away. DJR (Talk) 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - people create an account, at the urging of their friends, just to vote on one article all the time. They're called Meatpuppets. --Xyzzyplugh 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • They're also called newbies, and they might become good Wikipedia contributors if you don't call them disparaging names. Do you realize how many new editors get introduced to the editing side of Wikipedia through AfD? I think that every use of the M-word, unless it's a case of clear malice, is an instance of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - It is stated above that this page is designed to gage general opinion of Wikipedia users, regarding the article. As such, I feel that it is notable that not a single person (below the age of 21) that I know does not play "The Game". This is the case with the wide majority of my peers, and through them my extended network of aquaintances quite easily spans the majority of Nottingham City. As such, I believe that it is quite clear that the article fulfils the notoriety requirements of Wikipedia. Previous posters have said such things as "If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then" when the article clearly states that the game has existed since 1993, and I personally have been playing since 2003, as have most of my peers. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.7.19.84 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep- Why delete this? It's a notable internet meme and is an actual game played throughout the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.26.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Certainly references in TV shows and the like, popular meme not only on the net but in "real life". Last time I explained the rules to someone, several passers-by expressed annoyance at losing it :) I guess if you really want proof of notability, try shouting "You just lost the game!" in a crowded place. ZoFreX 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought about it long and hard, but decided my original decision was wrong. The game is notable yes, and it definitely exists - but we have no sources, it's therefore clearly against policy, and as others have pointed out Wikipedia is fast becoming a primary source for this, which is a bad idea (we delete other games made up in school to stop Wikipedia being used as a platform for spreading memes, which is exactly what is happening here!). With respect to the large number of users voting keep, (and of course welcome to those new to Wikipedia!), many of you do not seem to understand the reasons for deleting - nobody, or almost nobody, is claiming that The Game does not exist, however it is against the policies of this encyclopedia to document as fact something that we cannot back up. Also, as far as I'm aware the fact it has survived before is not grounds by itself to keep the article. ZoFreX 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- As above.ShaunES 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it survived twice before, however, it should definitely be cleaned up, and unsourced material should be deleted. Kind of difficult to find sources for it, but they should exist. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I've encountered this before; there are a few die-hard fans of this spamming teh Game all over teh Intarnets (and our articles, like Meme, I might add). Their actions, and the subject matter convince me this is a remarkably idiotic subject matter and the current article an attempt at advertising. --maru (talk) contribs 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment By that specious logic, then the articles on leetspeak or pwned, etc. should be deleted. brabblebrex 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Except that leetspeak and the etymology of words like pwned is, for the most part, well documented elsewhere with plenty of sources. ZoFreX 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The documentation is irrelevant. I was referring to the fact that such nomenclature is often used by persons whose actions are often construed as idiocy (like spamming pages on Wikipedia). According to Marudubshinki's logic, that would override verified scrutiny. brabblebrex 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Addition to previous statement - much of the article is not verifiable, so if kept, I'd say get rid of almost everything except the 3 core rules, until we have sources for the rest. (And I assure the above poster that while this article may be unsourced, and may have problems enough to be deleted, it is not just a few die hard people advertising it, but is incredibly widespread). ZoFreX 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's such a popular game, why shouldn't we list it? 193.13.57.88 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless proper sources can be citted, then it shouldn't be kept. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I've been playing the game for about two years and never came across an article online to help explain it. it's really an amazing mind game - the article's part on its effects on the mind is correct. I don't understand why the article would be deleted if it isn't anywhere else on the internet. that doesn't seem fair. as for it not being credible, the article states itself that the origins are unknown and the theory it provides is labled as such- a theory. this article is very helful to send new players too also, just so the know how big it is and how to play, how many lives are affected by it. Keep! [Unsigned comment by 24.151.23.140. Please sign edits to talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~]
    • If, in two years, you've never come across an article that explains it, that is a reason not to include the article. Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep I lost now, dammit! -- PinkDeoxys 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ignore all rules presides over No Original Research on this one by common sense. It is widespread, it is not internet-confined, as I have experienced several times myself. Nobody is going to write anything authoritative about it but there is enough acquired knowledge about it to write good undisputed prose about it, so it should stay. If you've never heard of it, tough, don't edit the article. BigBlueFish 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment WP:IAR is a pseudo-guideline; WP:SENSE is not even that. WP:NOR is a fundamental content-guiding policy; it can't be simply over-ruled in the manner you suggest. Kinitawowi 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I lose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.69.134.250 (talk • contribs)
  • keep Im not sure how helpful this is but most universities include a "game" group in their facebook listings, as such lots of references exist on the net but are unaccessable to people outside of the education system —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuberant (talk • contribs)
    • (This user's only contribution.) I really don't understand what you mean. Even if we could acsess this, how it is a reference? It might prove the game exists, as many other links above, but it still wouldn't provide a source for the content of the article. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • A significant number of delete votes claim The Game is non-notable or nonsense. This probably explains why a lot of people are still arguing that it is notable. Kernow 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Wikipedia is meant to be informative and useful and learning about The Game falls into both catagories. Just because something sounds daft to some people doesn't mean it should go. Trainspotting might sound daft to some but is there an article on that? Yes. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.97.35 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Voters should look at the current draft of the article which is much better done and is sourced. JoshuaZ 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There still isn't sources for the rules, or the description of what The Game actually is. These sources should be reliable, not "fan sites" or blogs. Something like a respected media outlet would be ideal. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What would you consider the minimum in reliable sources? 68.221.74.38 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason that there are not many websites about the game is because the upkeepers of those websites would lose whenever they keep them up to date. The best way to win the game is to pretend it doesn't exist. This article must be kept! By the way, can't we just use people as sources? --Liface 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Seqsea's diligent research above (way above) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether it is notable is not the issue to me. It is simply unverified -- and, much worse, unverifiable -- by the terms of WP:V and WP:RS. If it's not verifiable from reliable sources, it shouldn't be here. User:Seqsea spent considerable time trying to find reliable sources. I have a lot of respect for Seqsea when it comes to conscientious referencing, and if he says he can't find reliable sources for something, then it starts to look very shaky indeed. The websites people are citing here on AfD as sources do not qualify on WP:RS. WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources says it quite clearly: "personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website". This article has gone through two AfDs already, amid heated debate and promises to improve the article, and has had an RFC request which resulted in attention from non-involved editors. If, after all that, these are still the best attempts sources that can be found, it doesn't matter how notable the thing is (or isn't). The article can not be reliably referenced, will never be reliably referenced, and should not be on Wikipedia. Telsa (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Surely as soon as a reference to The Game is published somewhere it will become verifiable. As with the argument for hide and seek, no one knows where it originated, but it has since been refered to in published material. The same will eventually happen with The Game. Kernow 21:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And that at that time we can create an article for it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have run into people i don teven know who play this game, seams like it should stayZath42 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ""Keep"". The game is a widespread social phenomenon-- not an innnocuous schoolyard-type fad. Of course the game is unverified-- there is no central authority or any official sanctioning body that administrates game playing around the world. However, we do know that people, independantly, take part in the game; it is a relatively well-perpetuated phenomenon which this site, in fact, would only continue to propagate in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.142.210 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep THERE ARE NO ORGINAL SOURCES FOR THE GAME 'HIDE AND SEEK' SO CLEARLY ITS ENTRY SHOULD BE DELETED TOO??? How can anyone possibly expect verifiable sources for the game to ever be found? It was MADE UP by people, just like everything else, but because its a silly game, there is no article in the New York Times about it. Come ON guys think properly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Zen (talk • contribs)
    • (This user's 2nd edit.) Just because Hide and Seek isn't referenced doesn't mean this article should be kept. It means someone should go reference it. It will easy to find reliable references for Hide and Seek compared to what it has been trying to find some for The Game. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hide and Seek is in the OED with a first reference of 1724—two years later, it's in Gulliver's Travels. LexisNexising returns 57 results in major newspapers for the phrase "hide and go seek". Thank you for alerting me to the sad state of Hide and Seek, though. It's on my list of things to fix up now :) Also, please be civil. —Seqsea (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like a Deus ex Machina is needed to sort this one out. brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's looking like this could be one of the most critical AfDs in the history of Wikipedia; determining whether an article on a meme should be kept because lots of people know about it, or deleted because the strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy states that it's unverifiable. I truly hope that whatever admin ends up making the call on this is able to assess this article independently of their own opinions on the Game, because that's what I can see this boiling down to. Kinitawowi 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep provides sources. Computerjoe's talk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor pop society fad. Not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is "record what the human race has learned", not "node what you know" like Everything2. silsor 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Given what a mess this AfD is, I recommend to the admin that it be given an outcome of no consensus. JoshuaZ 22:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think that would be the worst decision that could be made, particularly considering that this is the third nomination for the article. The decision should be either keep or delete; a no consensus is likely to result in another AfD nomination within a couple of months. Kinitawowi 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Well then this should definitely be a keep since when in doubt one is supposed to keep. I think the above in any event with WP:UCS says keep pretty strongly, but apparently there is a lot of disagreement. JoshuaZ 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sure WP:V and WP:NOR overules common sense. To quote them, [These] policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment But we have verification, see the article which has a link, and I'd like to see what in the current version is OR. JoshuaZ 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
            • That source is self-published. WP:V#Self-published_sources says they are not acceptable as sources with very few exceptions. The article stands as OR without reliable sources. (See also User:Seqsea's vote above which explains in more detail.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment But WP:RS which determines sourcing reliability is a guideline, not a rule, and WP:V does say "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The use of "largely" in there indicates that it is not an ironclad rule, so WP:UCS overrides. JoshuaZ 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
                • If you continue reading the policy after that sentence, it's goes on to list the exceptions. The current reference doesn't even come close. WP:UCS isn't even a guideline, it can't overule a fundamental policy. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment. The current version is better, but still has original research. Anything that is not the three rules is, at this point, original research, and even the rules have verifiability problems in the traditional sense. We do not have verification: We have one website that suffers from credibility. We cannot WP:UCS about this... the goal is not to document fun games or social memes; the goal is to produce an encyclopedia based on verifiable information. —Seqsea (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for many of the reasons above. YashaBK 00:05, 23 March 2006 (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.