- The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|Afd3|DRV|AfD4|DRV2|AfD5|AfD6)
Important request: If you have just arrived at this DRV for the first time and have already decided what your recommendation will be then we respectfully suggest that you should review the new article and its sources before commenting in this DRV. This DRV has been created as there now exists a prototype article based upon multiple published sources, which the article's creators believe addresses all of the objections raised at the previous AFDs. Please kindly take the time to study the prototype article and its sources before posting your comments.
WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS have all evolved since the last time the subject of this article was discussed so please ensure you read and understand these policies and guidelines thoroughly before casting your opinion.
Previous debates regarding the topic of this article have seen what appeared to be considerable attempts at "ballot stuffing", both for and against the article's existence. This is pointless as DRV is not a vote. If you intend to take part in this debate, please ensure that your comments are constructive and refer clearly to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support them. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (allow re-creation). Now has multiple reliable sources. (I became involved as a result of a posting by the nominator to the Help Desk.) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The only reliable source in the list is the Canadian Press reprints. The De Morgen article has already been discussed and rejected frequently. Corvus cornixtalk 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- De Morgen is one of the three most popular newspapers in Belgium with a readership of over 50,000. There is no policy invalidating foreign sources. If anything this is further indication of how widespread The Game is. Please clarify/reference what you mean by it having already been rejected. LoserNo1 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the previous AfDs, the article was rejected because De Morgen was the sole source where multiple sources were required. The De Morgen newspaper was never rejected as a reliable source. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was rejected because there was no explanation in the article as to where the information came from, it appeared to be derived from unreliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware there are no policies or guidelines that require a reliable source to state its own sources (which, in turn, must be reliable). Surely that would lead to an infinite regress. If I am mistaken please reply with the relevant links. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The administrator who closed the 5th AfD said "I did a lookup against reliable sources for the De Morgen article, and it says that foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguments are moot." LoserNo1 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but that doesn't apply to the first two sources listed above, which are largely based on direct quotes from players of the game, (i.e. primary sources,) including documenting the phenomenon of someone finding that friends who live in 2 different states have also heard of the same game. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just notified User:Ezeu, the deleting admin from the last AfD. I'm going to wait for him to come by before I make my decision. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- allow re-creation Proposed article appears to be well sourced Hobit (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation Additional reliable source since the last AFD pushes the article over the notability standard. Davewild (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. Nice, well-sourced article on the subject.--Father Goose (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Yes, we know they have a website devoted to gathering every passing mention in the hope of getting a Wikipedia article, which to some of them has achieved the status of a near-religious quest. No, the sources are not compelling. Yes, I have had enough of the obsession with this ridiculous trivia. Yet another request from a single purpose account. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reference to Wikipedia policy that supports your opinion. The fact that you personally think the subject of the article is ridiculous is no reason for the article not to exist. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe I'm saying this, but allow recreation - what is this, "shit on DRV perennial requests by trying to fix the objections often cited in numerous DRVs" month? Still, it's doing something the ED DRV failed to do: all three of the top sources supply significant-if-not-sole coverage. Well done. Sceptre (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. Looking through the previous AFDs, there were a number of serious problems with the earlier article that was deleted (only a single reliable source, contained original research that wasn't in the source, little evidence of verifiable notability at the time). The proposed article here looks like it fully addresses these; it now has multiple sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS which are consistent with each other and assert the subject's notability, and importantly, the proposed article sticks firmly to the information presented in those sources. A well written and suitably sourced article. Wiw8 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation, semi-protect/full-protect article. After all that's been done to bring it back into Wikipedia, I fancy a vandalism shootout in the very near future, if only for its infamy.--WaltCip (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation per the new sourcing and keep a close eye on the page per WaltCip. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation per the new sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation with no prejudice against taking back to AfD. I doubt it's every going to be a great article but there seems to be enough reliably sourced information to support a stub at the least. Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation without endorsing the sample article. There do seem to be reliable sources for more than existence now, though I understand Guy's caution. Note to the nominator: if you want the article to survive long after undeletion, it will need to lose the "look how neat this is" tone in the current sample article. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify what you mean by this? Myself and others spent a long time writing the article to try and make it clear, well-referenced and, well, neat... Sorry. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were trying to make it "neat", that explains the tone of the last two sections. Unfortunately, the tone of both is wrong for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I'd suggest reworking them to be more neutral - but, more to the point, I'd suggest accepting that an article written in that tone is likely to either get rewritten (after all, "anyone can edit") or lead to the article being AfDed again. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, sorry, do you mean "neat" as in "tidy" or as in "cool"? I'm a bit confused. I don't see how these paragraphs are biased. They are facts taken from the sources. If you could give me some examples of the problem and an example improvement I will try to fix it. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LoserNo1, I'll put some suggestions on your talk page about how the tone of the article can perhaps be changed. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made a few amendments to the wording of the article following some of Coppertwig's suggestions (see my talk page for more details). LoserNo1 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. Seems to address all the previously-stated problems. Also, I just lost. --- RockMFR 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I never think about what I'm saying, I have never lost the game.--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- allow recreation We now have multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources. This does not make the game any less idiotic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation with the absolute intent of further encouraging article improvement as a means of escape from purgatory. The topic is so easily recognized across a wide swath of ages and backgrounds that it's odd it has not been written about more often; don't journalists want to make people lose? In any case, notability has been satisfied, the editors have gone the extra mile to incorporate offline and non-English sources, and the DRV request is well-formatted, thoughtful, and respectful of our policies. I see no reason to object. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should really be recreated at a different title, like "The Game (mind game)", since this isn't the only "game" that goes by that name. WarpstarRider 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. When the previous articles existed it looks like this was the only game called "The Game" on Wikipedia, but this is no longer the case. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I guess it's pointless to ring in with a vote like this considering this is damn near a snowball, but I agree with Guy pretty much 100%. This is dumb college crap and should stay gone. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my reply to Guy. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, the opinion of a Wikipedian that a topic is "dumb", or even the fact of a topic being verifiably "dumb", whatever that would mean, is not a criterion for deletion. Having something to do with college is not a criterion for deletion either. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, such sources are not usually sufficient to establish notability. But this article also has multiple, independent, non-trivial published sources that discuss the subject and its notability which you may have missed - may I politely suggest that you examine the newspaper articles listed in section number 1 here, which should demonstrate that this article is not relying on blogs and webcomics to establish its notability after all. Thanks - Wiw8 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Against-the-grain and probably pointless keep deleted - I still feel that the De Morgen article is nothing more than a throwaway opinion piece with no facts cited, no quotes to base the article on, and nothing that makes it useful. The Canadian Press article depresses me, because while I know that community newspapers will occasionally do articles on trivial topics, having the CP do one on this and actually putting it on the wire - and having editors pick it up... that says "slow news day" to me. The other topics are, as noted above, not reliable sources, leaving us with one single item that actually comes close to passing WP:RS. I don't feel this is enough to meet verifiability, and thus the article should be kept deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tony Fox. As I suggest in the header for this DRV, it would be helpful if you could refer to policy that supports your opinion. I can find nothing requiring a reliable source to have "quotes to base the article on". As for the De Morgen article having "no facts cited", the entire article is filled with facts about what The Game is, where it is played and strategies that people use. I have incorporated these facts into the prototype article and referenced them to the De Morgen article. If we deleted every Wikipedia articleabout things that some people thought were pointless then there wouldn't be much left. This topic has reliable sources and evidence of notability, and you will need to refer to Wikipedia policy rather than your personal feelings towards the subject if you want to make a strong argument. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that I refer to verifiability and reliable sources guidelines there and expressly attempted to remain well clear of my personal feelings towards the subject, you may want to reread what I wrote. I've said before that if any reporter who worked for me gave me an article with as little actual cited fact as was in the De Morgen article - which looks like the writer just took a bunch of website prints or something and said "This is what this game is, here's what happens in a few places, but I'm not going to give you any indication that it's anything more than something some kids made up someplace because I don't have actual scholarly citations or other backing material," I'd have told them off and sent them to get a real story with quotes and actual content. None - zero, nil - of the facts in the De Morgen article are backed up by anything. Thus, I see it as an opinion piece. As far as I'm concerned, it is not a useful reference. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said to Corvus cornix above, there is no requirement for reliable sources to be backed up by other reliable sources. This would lead to an infinite regress. The De Morgen article is on page 2 of a major Belgian newspaper. I am aware that you mentioned verifiability and reliable sources guidelines in your comment but you did not point out any specific part of them that invalidates this source. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of prefer my references to actually have some kind of factual aspect to them. The De Morgen article has no quotes from sources; it has no references to any sort of source for its claims. That's my point. It is completely and utterly unverifiable, and in my view trash as a reliable source. Last comment here, as it's bloody pointless to continue and I'm just getting miffed with the whole exercise. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion — at this point, an article can be written that covers all three of the major content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). I can understand the arguments for not having biographies of marginally notable BLPs, but that is not an issue here. For popular culture articles, meeting the basic core requirements should be all that is needed. *** Crotalus *** 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation per the prototype article being sourced by reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
