- Penis game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article is one of the clearest examples I have seen of "something made up in school one day". In closing, Krimpet concludes "reliable sources have been found over the course of this AfD... that seem to satisfy notability guidelines". Looking through those "sources" I cannot agree. The BBC story referenced [2] is from its children's "newsround" section and does not strike me as greatly relevant- it seems to be about childish behaviour and encouraging children to wear pants on their heads. Another is a chat transcript. The google news archive hits are largely for student papers and some of the hits are clearly talking about something else. For example, the fifth hit refers to "the morale-boosting "Penis Game," where you score points by flashing another employee" - clearly another game altogether... As is the one concerning "a television game in which a contestant was asked to identify her fiancee by his penis". In arguing that the article should be kept, Edison asks the question: "Do campus papers count for satisfying "multiple reliable and independent sources?" I think the closer's unambiguous response to that question should have been no. A clear majority of participants identified that the subject was unencyclopedic and unsupported by reliable sources. Given their views and the weaknesses of the material found which even mentions this game, this article should have been deleted in line with WP:NOT. WjBscribe 03:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: I was initially going to vote to uphold the AfD decision, but, after a Google News and LexisNexis search, it appears there truly aren't many (if any) reliable sources for this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete very little if anything in the way of reliable sources and certainly not the significant coverage required to establish notability - several of the sources given in the AfD discussion appear to have nothing to do with the topic of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Remember when notable was just another word in the English language, not a complicated legal doctrine? The game really is quite notable; I don't think I know a single person who never played this growing up. Anyways, Kizor and Edison made arguments that were grounded in policy. Wikipedia is not censored; the game is childish and immature (indeed!) but that doesn't mean that it's somehow childish and immature of us to document it. As many of the delete votes were arguably IDONTLIKEIT's, Krimpet made a reasonable close based upon the discussion. --JayHenry (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse, as per JayHenry. I've always been one to suggest that en-WP has been straying too far from any useful -- or coherent -- understanding of notability. This is a good example. We know that the penis game is essentially unambiguously notable; scrutinizing the integrity and applicability of these sources as we would in the context of, say, Holocaust denial, is just a bad idea. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Several sources icited in AfD. cirrect reading of consensus DGG (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Edison's discovery of many sources came late in the discussion so the closer might reasonably have discounted earlier comments. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Of the sources provided, these two are non-trivial coverage of the topic, and the second looks reliable to me. Granted that consensus hasn't been implemented by adding those sources to the article, but we can fix that right now. Jay also makes some great points above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Keep - I have integrated sources into the article, if anyone knows of any more please let me know. Fosnez (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oooh, two blogs? That surely qualifies as multiple independent sources. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Overturn, delete, WP:NFT even if school has a column in its student paper that notes it being made up. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the sources in the DRV, we have: a short paragraph in an 83 page academic paper that cites our article as a source, a minor mention in a chat transcript, a 38 second youtube video, a 42 second video on collegehumor, an xkcd cartoon, Google search results that seem to be about an unrelated film, 3 college newspaper articles, only 1 of which is actually about the penis game, and a few articles that tangentially mention a related game in the context of television shows and other events. Multiple — yes, independent — generally, reliable — not so much, non-trivial coverage — no. Delete. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Endorse,duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry but the article probably needs more generalization and a better title, its not a specific game but a range of play behavior. That would clarify the sourcing needs, and make i it clearer that there is sufficient.DGG (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC) sorry about that; DGG (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)- Endorse keep per the South Yorkshire Star source - I was going to bring up the fact that a derivative had been played regularly on Dick and Dom in da Bungalow, and the fact the hosts were criticised in Parliament... the game's notable, but should be under a different title. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Endorse keep we need more articles just like this. This is a perfect example of what will propel this project toward its ultimate goals. While we are at it, lets mark it as featured, and put it at the top priority spot for the print version. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- On second thought, Overturn, delete this is pure shite. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually Jerry was mostly correct the first time. We do need more articles like this if we are going to embrace all human knowledge and provide what our readers are looking for. — Becksguy (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are not "embrac(ing) all human knowledge" anymore. While that was a laudable ideal, WP:N shows that as a whole, the community doesn't find that realistic. If you wish to repeal WP:N, feel free to discuss that on its Talk page, but DRV isn't the place to overturn policy. -- Kesh (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually we still are. Only a minority of the larger community feels otherwise. I have seen plenty of comments like this to know that we really do not have a consensus on our larger purpose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Considering consensus agrees that WP:N is policy, you'll forgive me if I doubt that. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous." If you wish to continue trying to include everything under the sun, please try to get WP:N repealed, instead of making a WP:POINT in every DRV on the page. -- Kesh (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus requires agreement. Admins and other established editors in this discussion (on both sides) remain in disagreement, which means that we do not have an agreement and therefore do not have consensus. A guideline that you need to read is Wikipedia:Assume good faith and maybe even the article on Honesty. You wrote "every DRV on the page"? Huh? I think the only DRV for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 31 that I have participated in thus far is this one (Penis game). I do not recall yet commenting on Ahmed_Huber, Category:Fictional characters by religion, Joseph S. Johnston (judge), Patricia_Gras (closed), or Splinters_Theatre_of_Spectacle (closed). Plus, I do not argue in support of every article. Consider these two discussions. I am more than willing to argue delete and have done so more than these two times, but if I see any good faith editors arguing for keep then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, because any good faith keeps are proof to me that the article has value and relevance to somone, i.e. someone who may be a contributor or donor to our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- No matter how you torture it, that does not fit the definition of WP:Consensus: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.". I'm done debating semantics with you. -- Kesh (talk)
- Delete what Jerry said. Rubbish & Nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and Delete - A campus editorial and a blog do not constitute multiple reliable sources. As User:Mr.Z-man pointed out, none of the other "sources" brought up in the AfD would stand scrutiny in any Wikipedia article. A quick Google search shows that this isn't even a single "game," just a name used for any number of purile pranks and in-jokes. If we had an article, it would need solid sources and to talk about the different "versions" of how folks play, because there is no single Penis Game from what I can determine. I don't think the closer acted badly, per se, but that they were taken in by the volume of supposed sources cited in the AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is why we shouldn't trust Google searches to establish notability. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet, we should trust a blog and a student newspaper as the sole sources for notability? Please. -- Kesh (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. I concur with Z-man on this one. The sources are minor, and not so academic and authoritative that they lead to a "must keep" passing of notability. I can understand the people who voted "keep", but the rough consensus was to delete. With the article looking fully like original (or at least juvenile) research (rules, strategy, etc.), I think this needs to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am changing my vote to relist. A fair number of people,above and below, have said that the sources might affect their opinion on the article, so an outright overturn and delete is probably not appropriate. The rest of my comment stands though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Keep The references, while not overwhelming, constitute multiple third party and reliable sources with significant coverage for this article. The subject is unlikely to be covered in the mainstream press and the college press is acceptable as sources. This is not brain surgery or some complex controversial subject that requires voluminous sourcing. This is encyclopedic, part of our culture, and adds to WP. Keep per all the keep arguments, especially JayHenry, xDanielx, DGG, Colonel Warden, Septre, and the sources from lifebaka. The article is clearly notable and I see no reason to overturn as the closer was correct in reading consensus as keep. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Keep Not the best of sourcing (and I'd never heard of it before even though I read xkcd), but dude, there are a lot of references, often in passing or on blogs. The referencing that exists is just enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- "In passing" is what kills those references (and blogs are not considered reliable sources anyway. If the source is not substantially about the topic itself, it does not satisfy WP:V. And none of the given sources satisfy WP:V. -- Kesh (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The school paper is, IMO, a RS for this type of article. Hobit (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- What, because of the high reputation for fact-checking of school papers, you mean, or just because of the kudos accorded to its Pulitzer Prize winning journalists? Guy (Help!) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because the school paper's coverage isn't of something local. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, because it's not local to the school that makes it reliable? I think I missed something here. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse keep. There might be sourcing issues that would call for deletion, but I'm not sure if WP:NFT really applies (which is extremely ironic, I know). It's one thing to make an article for the silly little game you made up with your friends, but the Penis game is has lived on far longer than the vast majority of such things. Fart humor for sure, but I think it's a part of our culture, in a way. DRV isn't really the place for me to say this, but I wouldn't oppose some form of merge. It doesn't take much to explain the penis game, and I could see it as a possible solution (maybe). -- Ned Scott 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's my real problem with these arguments: which "penis game" are you talking about? We've already seen that there are many variations mentioned on Google, none of which even resemble one another. This is really a collection of things made up in school one day that happen to use the same name, with no real way to verify any of it. -- Kesh (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The guideline (not a policy) talks about things made up by a bunch of bored sophomores, literally in school one day. Or while drinking (when older). A full reading of WP:MADEUP clearly shows that that it should not, and does not, apply to cultural games, phenomenas, and memes that have grown past that immediate neologism stage. The Penis game clearly has, to the point of having been documented in sufficiently reliable sources. An article in The New York Times would clinch it's notability, but there are sufficient, if not overly so, reliable sources taken together. Heavy or academic sources are not required here, as this is not a jury debating the death penalty for a person accused of murder, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's just an article about a cultural game, or family of games, that clearly exist, and should be in an encyclopedia. So yes, campus sources count, especially as this is where the game mostly lives, among young males in the junior HS, high school and college age groups. In addition, there are different versions of the game of pool, or billiards, which belong to a family of games called pool. Same with the Penis game, so that is not a reason to delete. Becksguy (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is a random cluster of "games" that happen to all get called "The Penis Game" a cultural phenomenon? Again, we have two sources: a blog (not reliable) and a student newspaper. The article makes no attempt to document the variations, it just assumes one of them is "the" game. And we have no sources to back up any of it. Your example of pool is rather silly, as there are books and books about the game. If you can name a single book about The Penis Game (any of them), I'd be more inclined to take this argument seriously. As it stands, we're talking about a bunch of WP:MADEUP stuff whose only similarity is in the name. -- Kesh (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Google search isn't a science. The penis game is the one where you say/yell penis in a public place with another person. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And how is this game a cultural phenomenon? What sources do we have to back up that claim? One student newspaper article. That's it. That's not a phenomenon, it's barely a blip on the social radar. Again, there's really no sourcing here to show notability, much less verify that this is what people in general mean when they talk about "The Penis Game." Google searches aren't a science, but they do show that this isn't a single phenomenon, it's a bunch of disparate pranks people play under a similar name. -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- "but they do show that this isn't a single phenomenon" Haha, oh wow. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...either you misread my statement, or I missed the joke. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse keep per sufficient sourcing. It does seem to get google hits, so it seems legitimate. If there are multiple different kinds of penis games, then the article can be re-written to take that into account with a lead like "Penis game refers to a variety of..." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just looking at the first page of the search results none of them seem to refer to the game in question except for the Wikipedia article and an urban dictionary page. The rest refer to different games or are just pages which have both of the words in the search term in the title. Putting quoatation marks around the words cuts the results down to less than a tenth of the original number [3] and looking at the first few pages most of the results are blogs, youtube videos and other user generated content as well as other pages which again do not refer to the game described in the article. Despite the results I do not see anything that could be described as a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again with Google results "penis game" ~26,000 results[4] "face game" ~169,000 results[5] "leg game" ~27,000 results[6] "arm game" ~12,000 results[7] "shoe game" ~67,000 results[8] "ear game" ~29,000 results[9]. Personally I do not feel that these are articles waiting to be written. Guest9999 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- We have WP:GOOGLE for a reason. -- Ned Scott 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which states: Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Which is what we've been doing. -- Kesh (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete like the majority of people at the AFD asked for. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
|
