Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walking 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 delete.  Grue  09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Walking Game

Non-notable game. I canm't find anything on google relating to this game outside the website already linked to, or to any of the "notable" individuals or incidents mentioned. -- Francs2000 20:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~)

  • Delete per nom. Google search for "the.walking.game casualty" gives no results. Probably hoax by anon editor 66.108.29.119. -- Perfecto Canada 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP- Deleting this article would be robbing the youth of America a chance to learn more about a sport they are increasingly interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 21:10, November 27, 2005 (YTC) NOTE: "Keep" added to comment by Dburnsey43 (talk · contribs), who has 'voted' several times already.
  • Keep On the contrary, i have played this game many times and have seen it in action on the streets of both manhattan and San francisco. Some of the participants achieve a balletic elegance akin to the better NFL running backs. This game has merit. not everything worthwhile can be googled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzrobertz (talk • contribs) 20:10, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Dzrobertz's first edit. -- Perfecto Canada 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) NOTE: "Keep" added to comment by Dburnsey43 (talk · contribs), who has 'voted' several times already.
  • Keep -It is a flawed argument by perfecto. Why must a "street" game be on google. People play this game. I was glad to see this page created. I cannot verify the records but I have heard Andrew Roberts' name when referring to this game.The Helsinski incident did happen. Please keep this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anr325 (talk • contribs) 20:17, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have seen this game played as well in oklahoma city, oklahoma. I find this page extremely interesting and you can check the external links at the bottom of the page. After reading this article i have started playing the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anr325 (talk • contribs) 20:28, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I don't understand why you would delete this page. The walking game is one of the most popular pasttimes amongst teens in urban North America... it is important to show information about it. It is very popular in Toronto, Ontario as well as the locations already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 21:08, November 27, 2005 (YTC)
  • Delete as extremely non-notable. Turnstep 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Turnstep. Joyous | Talk 22:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless Bwithh 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 22:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this page; it is pointless to you because you have not played it. So why dont i say delete the soccer page if i dont play it. You are not the only person in the world. This article is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-27 23:12:29 UTC
  • Delete per Allen3 (you know, page looks like somebody trying to get a joke page in). Mark K. Bilbo 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous and limited-contribution user(s): You've been shown by Allen3 the only thing that you can do here that will achieve anything, namely you must cite published works from multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing this game. I suggest that you learn from the experience of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET. The editors there made no effort whatsoever to actually cite any sources when asked for them, despite being shown by example what to do, but instead continued to argue in the very same way the you have been here. As a result, their article ended up being deleted. If, like them, you simply continue as you have been, the same will happen to this article. Furthermore, nominating an article with no references at all for featured article status will undermine other editors' assumptions of your good faith, and might even lead them to conclude that this article is simply silly vandalism. Uncle G 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete according to our verifiability guidelines. These socks are made for walking, it seems. The anonymous keep voters would also do well to follow the sage advice of Uncle G and Allen3 above. We need reliable third party sources such as newspaper reports, magazine articles etc in order to verify articles. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have evidence from a newspaper that is not online. I work for The Riverdale Review and they have an article in the making about the walking game and how it is taking over the community of Riverdale, NY. This newspaper does not put its articles online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 November 2005 UTC
    • Comment Then you're saying this is not verifiable? That means per WP:V it doesn't belong here. Mark K. Bilbo 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am one of the Walking Game fans who helped write this article. I can 100% assure you that this is not a 'joke page' and it is not 'vandalism'. I strongly urge you to not delete this page as it is a legitimate game and many people wish to learn more about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburnsey43 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 November 2005 UTC
  • keep I have seen people play this game and although it is not common in my country, greece, I would like this article to stay online to share it's fun to the world. I can assure you this is no "joke page" assomeone said. i do not understand your distrust. if you are confident it is made up leave it alone because it is not and i think you are the ones playing the "joke"Mcr345 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • '"comment"' I work for the daily mirror in london and i work there as an intern at the sports section and have seen at least 5 newspaper articles about the game and andrew roberts. I even have a friend who has met andrew roberts. If the creator(s) would give me thier email address then i could send you an article on this popular game.Bettybesser 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I do not understand how come you guys twice disrupted me when it was Francs2000 who nominated the article for deletion. If you would like information on the game "to stay online to share it's fun to the world," then I recommend you register for free web hosting and create a website somewhere. In my opinion, it's much easier than going through the trouble you and your friends went through today. No one will argue with you. Do you think that this website provides free webhosting? No, it doesn't. Content here, of course, has to follow the rules here. Consider this, if you had a website and then one day a group of people deface pages and add pages and insert inappropriate information on it, how would you feel, what would you do? Thank you for listening. -- Perfecto Canada 05:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP That's not featured article but does not look like vandalism either. Please keep it. Much more interesting and fun than shoe polish. Vb 09:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Outstandingly non-notable, unverifiable, etc. Nuke it like NUGGET. - Randwicked 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete before it becomes an "established meme" due to its existence here. Cynical? Me? Perish the thought. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it needs some clean-up but it is very good. As long as they have one more source they should be allowed to keep it. Give them time to find locate a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 12:34, November 28, 2005 (UTC)*
  • KEEP- Who cares if there is "verifiable factual evidence". It is an underground game and there are no books or pages written on it, that dosen't make it a false article... it is legitimate. This article is very important to many people and I strongly suggest you keep it. It is a real and useful article and deleting it does not accomplish anything other then showing how society is further trying to oppress the freedom and expression of our youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 14:39, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep- What harm is this page causing to you who do not wish to learn about the walking game? Compare that with the benefit it is giving thousands of youth that do wish to learn about this popular game. So why would you erase a page that does not harm you but strongly benefits others? Is wikipedias purpose not to benefit and teach? Well I feel that this page contributes to that goal of Wikipedia and therefore it should be valued and kept. Don Burns 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep- on one condition: Donald Burns or anyone else for that matter can create a third-party source. Andrew Roberts can make one for all I care. I jst need one more source. It can be an essay, article, blog, tv show......I need a little more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 18:59, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article in the making: rumor around the Riverdale Review is that there is soon to be a featured article on the Walking Game due to extreme excitement around the community. Therefore, definitely KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 19:09, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS PAGE!!!!!!! I WON THE WALKING GAME INNER CITY CHAMPIONSHIP OF PHILADELPHIA IN 2002 AND MY LIFE HAS NEVER BEEN THE SAME! THANK YOU WALKING GAME CREATORS! ERIK RAHM IS MY IDOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 20:45, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 295 hits for "the walking game" on Google, no references supporting notability. -Silence 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If you ignore the odd little campaign to keep the page, concensus is delete. WP:DP allows for Early AfD Closings and I'd like to suggest that this would be a good case for one. The supporters of the page seem willing to take up time and page space but don't seem able to deliver a single valid reason for keeping the page. Mark K. Bilbo 21:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable in an encyclopedia. It might also be noted that some of the supporters are anonymous IP users, who are shouting at us all! — Wackymacs 21:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me. I have plenty of reasons to keep this page: this is a real game that is played on the streets. It does exist. This is what urban youth does. Why not show other people that youth does this game. The public has the right. What is your reason for deleting it? It is not on google. Pshh... Not everyhting important must be on google...Keep this page; with one more source acoming your argument's days are numbered. User:anr325
  • Why not argue against writing an article about a gang such as the crips or the bloods. This game is almost as prominent witht eh urban youth today. Keep.
  • I sincerely apologize. I was wrong… I was wrong for having faith in the goodness of humanity. I was wrong to think that the organization of Wikipedia would let a few kids who were given nothing trying to make something of themselves succeed. About 10 kids from across the world tried to bring some structure to a relevant and ever-present game and were shunned ruthelessly by you all. Forgive me for thinking that an innocent and genuine article would be allowed to exist in a system that claims to value “free speech” and “equality”. If it satisfies your hunger for power then take our article away from your site, but just know that you have needlessly crushed our innocent dream. This article that failed to meet your superficial standards despite its service and benefit to thousands of kids apparently has no place in our society. Do what you will, just realize the consequences and poor morals of your actions.

Good Day -dburnsey43

Okay, I laughed... - Randwicked 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Cry me a river, and take it to Everything2. JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be on Google. All we require is that it is verifiable. As stated several times above. That could be discussion on a television talk show, an article in a magazine or newspaper, a book or an independant website. Above, someone claimed it was in several off-line newspaper. Providing scans of those articles would be one way of getting this verified. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - A candidate for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Lisiate 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this game were as significant as the mostly anonymous commenters say it is, it would be easy to verify. Wikipedia is not intended for people, events, or activities to first come to the attention of the public. --Metropolitan90 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep...this game is significant but not to the general public. If you were a teenager you would know this game. Ask any teenager who is socially aware of his surroundings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP- this article and its events are provable given the means. Deleting would be silly. This game will probably be public very soon as pedestrians might get upset. If it's deleted wikipedia will look silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs)
  • An article about this will be on Wikipedia by mid-December.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 November 2005
    • Delete. I don't think so. Come back when you've grown up.Daniel Case 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the comment means that, after this article is deleted, the author(s) will re-post it, hoping that sheer perseverance will eventually overcome the community consensus for deletion. (Note to author(s): It won't. It'll only get you blocked.) JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Perfecto. Stifle 15:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but OK for BJAODN. JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Has someone (ideally an admin, someone who does the maintenance at AFD) considered removing all these nonsense IP-posted comments that are saying "KEEP..." etc etc? They are really cluttering up the page, and the AFD page states that IP votes are not seriously considered when it is decided wether the article is kept or deleted. — Wackymacs 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? It's easy to tell which comments are nonsense IP-posted ones without deleting all the great dramatics. -Silence 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP...clearly not vandalism. Keep per dburnsey. Anr325 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC) User:Anr325's three edits not connected to The Walking Game have been quickly reverted.
  • Keep- what harm is it doing, it is relevant and legitimate and it can be sited within a few weeks. It is not "non-sensical" and it is not "vandalism" -Don Burns 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Don Burns, did you forget you had already voted earlier in this discussion? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be a well written article and does not appear to me to be a joke article.Dr. B 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • After looking at it again, I will state that, for now, it be left in place. However, I think that the part involving the 'Helsinki incident' be removed. If not the whole section, then at least the photo, as unless Erik Rahm is 13-15 years old, and helped develop the game (or was a pioneer for the game) as a child (not to mention that the photo is in black and white), that can NOT be Erik Rahm. Also, I think that a certian date should be set for when things such as Don Burns' Essay on "the social relevance of The Walking Game" should be published by before they are declared void or something.Dr. B 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another hoax. --Pamri • Talk 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Disclaimer admits non-notability. If "Helsinki Incident" were verified, this might be enough for me to consider it notable despite limited popularity, but a lawsuit over a game like this would certainly have been picked up by google. And it wasn't. Ferret-aaron 07:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn'tseem like a notable game, if it even exists in the first place. — JIP | Talk 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - legitimate, valid, verified, interesting. All that an encyclopaedia is there for. Zordrac 13:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it verified? The only external link seems to be talking about a walking game other than the one described in the article, and none of the articles referenced in this discussion are online for the rest of us to look up for ourselves. --Metropolitan90 14:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • To add to what Metropolitan90 said, I get a grand total of 120 Google hits for "The walking game", and not one of the first twenty has anything to do with this. I'm getting tired of you voting to "keep" because something is "well known" or "verified" when no one else can find any evidence for it. In my opinion, your votes are not in good faith, and I am asking you to either stop this nonsense, or start presenting valid reasons. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep It WILL be verified shortly once the publication is complete. Please just take the "this article is pending deletion" notice off the article and give the article some time and more sources will soon be ready. Don Burns 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We won't do that. Once an article is AfD'd, the notice stays there for the full six days. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The reason people buy encyclopedia's and subscribe to internet databases is to get information that they wouldn't be able to get simply searching in yahoo or google. Plus getting information from an encyclopedia is more accurate then reading someones weblog that comes up in a search engine. If someone hears something about, "The Walking Game", and wants more information, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to look it up in Wikipedia.Ognit Ice 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment They also expect that the information was verified. There's been no verification this game exists. Just promises that someday, somewhere, somebody is going to write something. Mark K. Bilbo 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have seen this game being played in Scarborough, a locale within Toronto. It is clearly not very well-known, but I expect it to gain popularity. There are plenty of other games, activities, etc. that are played widely, but have never been mentioned in essay, article, TV broadcast, etc. And mostly, it has a very neat fringe appeal. So while the case for the game's veracity is hard to make, the opposing argument is equally difficult to posit. I say let it ride out. Stephen Job 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I live in Dallas and many of my freinds and my older brother's freinds play this game. I wasn't even sure what it was called but sure enough it is called the Walking Game. This game is real and this page is great for learning about it. I'm sure if you let this page stay the writers could get more facts and more sources, please don't delete it! 216.185.84.246 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for pretty much all reasons above. Rampart 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or tag with cleanup-verify. - Stoph 21:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I was pleasantly surprised to hear about this game being on Wikipedia when a friend stumbled across it. An article on the game was published in our school newspaper last month, which is when I originally learned about it. This game does seem to be gaining popularity and the article seems to me to be legitimate. The "Helsinki incident", mentioned in the article, was also mentioned in my school newspaper's report. I'll see if I can get a scan of it to help verify the article. Essentially this is one of those games that flies completely under the radar. I expect that pretty soon we could see some reports on the game on more mainstream media. Watch for it on your local news sometime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.81.98 (talk • contribs)


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.