Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
What happened to the article?
Someone deleted the real page and replaced it with 'I lost?' Does anyone know what happened to the real page, and why it was deleted?
~Dark_Aphotic
Click here: [[1]]Sethie 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats terribly rough. It certainly exists- anyone can google it and recieve a great number of relevant hits. I myself am a "player" (UK, was introduced by real life people, not the internet). Fact of the matter is, if something exists and is aknowledged by millions, it should not simply be ignored by an encyclopedia. Patch86 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- We'll just have to wait until more major news sources cover it before remaking the article. --Liface 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- wiki has clear guidelines, the game didn't meet them.Sethie 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would a major news source cover The Game?--dannycas 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Look how big it's gotten in just a few years. I wouldn't be surprised. --Liface 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why The Game article was deleted
This article was deleted because of a change in Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (WP:N). These now require multiple published sources, not just one. Kernow
- Bingo Sethie 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Although I should probably say that these reccomend multiple sources (as opposed to "require") as WP:N is only a guideline. Kernow 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- And it wasn't a change. At the very most is was a change of emphasis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now here's the rub. By its nature, The Game is a purely verbal tradition. Physical documentation is going to be rare. I've been playing it for about a year now (and was warned that it would quite possibley ruin my life). How does Wikipedia treat other oral traditions? -- Aardvarkoffnords 22:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless its the subject of non trivial articles that are verifiable from reliable sources then its probably not going to have an article. This would apply to any oral tradition be it a Dreamtime story of Indigenous Australians or the game. Gnangarra 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now here's the rub. By its nature, The Game is a purely verbal tradition. Physical documentation is going to be rare. I've been playing it for about a year now (and was warned that it would quite possibley ruin my life). How does Wikipedia treat other oral traditions? -- Aardvarkoffnords 22:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- And it wasn't a change. At the very most is was a change of emphasis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Although I should probably say that these reccomend multiple sources (as opposed to "require") as WP:N is only a guideline. Kernow 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
HERE ARE YOUR "MULTIBLE SOURCES!"
http://www.realcty.org/mw/index.php/The_Game http://www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm
- A wiki page (editable by anyone) and someones personal page do not meet WP:RS or WP:V. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Glad to see the same discussion, can still continue, even with the AfD closed! :) Sethie 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's about following the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the rules -- according to certain wikipolicy. Anyways, as it happens, I've looked at those 'multiple sources' and agree. Nobody's saying that 'The Game' doesn't exist. But if it hasn't been published properly it's arguably not notable enough to get into wikipedia. However, if for example you came up with 2 million results on google for "The Game" (accurate hits by the way, not 2 million pages talking about various games) then that would be something to go with. Wiki-admins (both the idiots and the remotely decent ones) rightfully frown upon blogs and small websites. Finally, in my devil's advocate, I will say that we can't have a Games article on every single miny game under the sun -- especially the less prominent ones. That's my 2 cents. Rfwoolf 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to see the same discussion, can still continue, even with the AfD closed! :) Sethie 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines vs Policy
This article was deleted because of a guideline (WP:N), not policy. The difference being that guidelines are overruled by common sense. The fact there has been so much discussion over the existence of this article, and so many failed deletion attempts, proves that this article is a special case. Also, the guideline that it now violates is a very recent addition to WP:N (i.e. since the previous AfD). I'm not saying that this article should definitely exist, but it should definitely be considered as a possible exception to these recent changes in Wikpedia guidelines. Kernow 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Kernow 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- (Actually, the article was deleted because of a probable violation of WP:RS which had been considered to be codifying WP:V, which is policy. WP:N is a separate justification for deletion.)
- There is only one (possibly) reliable source as to the existence of the game, and none for the rules variants which have been added to the article from time to time. (I say "possibly", because even the Dutch-speaking editors don't seem sure as to whether this might be a "human interest" story which was not fact-checked by the paper.) I suppose, contrary to the normal guidelines on links, the Google Usenet Archives might be considered a reliable source as to the claimed existence of the game. I don't see this as being worthy of being kept, or being maintainable as article if it were to be kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
