Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Max Pratt 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 of the debate was speedy delete since we've deleted this exact same game time and again:

  1. Wikilinking (AfD discussion) (more AFD discussion)
  2. Wikipedia game (AfD discussion)
  3. Wiki Link Contest (AfD discussion)
  4. Wikisurfing (AfD discussion)
  5. Wikichallenge (AfD discussion)

Note that we already have this game covered over and over in the project namespace:

Uncle G 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Max Pratt Game

Not eligible for speedy deletion, as far as I know. Vanity page about a game that the (presumably) self-described "child prodigy" Max Pratt created. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree that "child prodigy" does not meet rigorous definitions, and has thus been removed. Article however does describe a growing phenomenon among high schools, expanding from Leon County. Note that article author (me) is not Max Pratt, and is not related to Max Pratt. Main argument for non-deletion of the article: THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A JOKE.

  • Delete Although this is an adorable little variation on Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, Google returns next to nothing. If you can document the phenomenon or if it's better known by some other name, I might withdraw this vote. The burden is on you to prove this is (a) encyclopedic and (b) not original research. Good luck. Durova 06:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I cannot document this phenomenon, and due to lack of web-popularity, I sadly agree that this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

    In this article's defense, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The article is a description of an actual form of entertainment and past-time of apparantly a growing number of high school students in North Florida, not a self-elevating promotion. The article rises above the "vanity" denotation clearly by the Wiki rules. There is no clear reason for deletion. Must I remind you all of the very goal of Wikipedia? This incredible website is not being misused by an addition of information. Popularity does not prove the pertinence of data, countless revolutionary figures have shown us that. Reconsider. -BerretSO4 (ts)6:39 UTC 11-10-05

  • There's a site, now located at Six Degrees of Wikipedia, which more-or-less has done the same thing for a while, albeit not as a competitive game. User:Kate started the Six Degrees of Wikipedia no later than December 2004, so Max Pratt should not receive credit as the namesake of this game for inventing it in 2005. Anyway, this article is too Wikipedia-self-referential for the main namespace. Delete. --Metropolitan90 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a fine point, but there's also an article on Wikipedia called "Encyclopedia" - too self-referential? Additionally, the site given by Metropolitan90 is a utility used to find the web paths from one article to another. The concept of the game itself (in which using said utility would be illegal) is original and can still be denoted "The Max Pratt Game" under no free use infringement. If one man invents numerals and another invents a game aimed at finding a way to count objects, do they not both possess original concepts? Certainly, though, the utility could be referenced clearly in the "Strategies" section of the article. -BerretSO4
  • Delete because the claim of someone inventing this is obviously local to one person. While lots of people probably do this, the name given to it is inappropriate, and it is probably independently invented by most. As a general point, I believe that self-referential articles, e.g. Wikipedia are fine, but they must meet the same standard of notableness in the general(non-wikipedia) community as other topics. A1kmm 09:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Not sure if this is much use here but 0 google hits for "(The) Max Pratt game"; only 370 for "Max Pratt". Marcus22 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. The web isn't everything, but you can also try supporting this with news stories and books. If this is not documented anywhere it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia and thus for Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 12:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaargh! How many more times? I'm closing this now. Uncle G 13:29, 10 November 2005 (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.