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:No consensus, revert to keep. Prodego ^talk 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

Note to new users The general reaction to the presence of new voters voting keep is for long term editors to lean towards deleting. Please don't get this article deleted in your rush to proclaim support. JoshuaZ 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion debates[edit]

• VfD Archive (September 2004)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (November 2005)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination) (March 2006)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (March-April 2006)

Discussion[edit]

The page has been recreated but is not the same as previously deleted versions. For one thing, there is now a source of some sort. I don't understand the newspaper source, however, and the other reference is an advert. Recommend delete per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NFT. Chances of this being remembered in a year, let alone ten? Almost surely 0. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. The ad source is the same given in the last AfD; the one where someone wrote the link to the Wikipedia article on a board. The newspaper has less than 75,000 readers and has only a short article which I've heard is very similar to our old article here. Still unverifiable. I recommend actually protecting the ((deletedpage)) this time. --Rory096_(block) 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected. Kotepho 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only sprotected at first. --Rory096_(block) 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was specifically unprotected for this AFD and it is not recreated by a random user which would probably get streams of Speedy delete G4. Kotepho 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tony Bruguier 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (again). Per the discussion on Talk:The Game (game), there is a high likelihood that the 'source' was in fact based on our article. Even without the tell-tale signs, it does not explain where it got its information from and is next to useless in terms of verifiability. "The Game was also mentioned in an advertisement in MacWorld and MacAddict publications" sums up this article as having been written purely to survive deletion rather than to provide anyone with factual information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You made me lose Delete Good to see it's actually going through AfD Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke from orbit once and for all Speedy as previously deleted content. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is different from the previously deleted content, which is why I didn't speedy it myself. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if we invented this the outside source confirms that it exists. Kotepho 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Erm, a newspaper article based on our article and writing on a board confirms it exists? --Rory096_(block) 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no evidence that the newspaper article relied on Wikipedia at all. JoshuaZ 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I contend that even if the article was based on our article, people have started playing this game. This is the sort of thing that can bootstrap itself into existence and us not having an article on something we (might) have propelled seems silly. Kotepho 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really count the MacAddict or whatever it was ad, for the record. Kotepho 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the main point to address is Sam Blanning's; he may be right that the newspaper article is partly based on the old Wikipedia article. First of all, we don't know if that's true or not. In the given article, Wikipedia is not mentioned. We have no reason to believe that Wikipedia is the only source of that material, in which case I would agree that it would not be a reliable source. As has been pointed out, it's easy to convince yourself that people know what The Game is and play it by doing a web search: that may not be good enough for Wikipedia, but it's good enough for a newspaper article. Mangojuice 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mango and the fact that in general newspapers are considered RS unless one has a very good reason tot hink otherwsie. JoshuaZ 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete from orbit and salt the earth. --Syrthiss 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is different from the previously deleted content, which is why I didn't speedy it myself. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone who wants to delete this please explain how the current version does not meet WP:V or some other necessary condition? It has a newspaper reference and no one seems to be arguing that it is not-notable. And could those who are voting speedy please explain what speedy condition they want it to be speedied under? JoshuaZ 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's only one additional source which does not make it verifiable, it was recreated way outside of policy (this should have been taken back to DRV not recreated and sent here) and it's just another excuse of a reason by a group that will do anything including sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and blatant violation of consensus to delete and policy regarding deletion to get this article on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to comment on the sockpuppetry matter other than to note that there were many editors (such as myself) who had nothing to do with that, so to label it all as part of some "group" is highly misleading and unproductive. Now, I'm highly curious where in WP:V it says that "one additional source which does not make it verifiable" or something to that effect. JoshuaZ 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the additional source that's my main issue, it's the fact that people are using one source as a way to justify the entire article's recreation against consensus and against policy without even going through it the proper way and it seems nobody really cares about the fact that we are being walked over by the people at Savethegame . org in their quest to get this article recreated at any cost and in the process are making a mockery out of Wikipedia. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Existence of an organized outside group that wants to save the article is not a good reason to delete the article. Why not assume some good faith on the part of this group? I would say that this just provides additional evidence of the notability of the subject.Vlad1 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable subject per Mangojuice. --Goobergunch|? 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is not the issue here; it's verifiability. --Rory096_(block) 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Then why did the nominator cite WP:N and WP:NFT as reasons for deletion? --Goobergunch|? 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't know, but just because it doesn't meet 2 of the nom's reasons doesn't mean it should be kept. --Rory096_(block) 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment doesn't really matter, this whole AFD is invalid since it's a blatant policyvio and it's against community consensus because the article was recreated against policy and against consensus. The proper way for this to be done would be for this to have stayed protecteed deleted and it should have gone back to DRV with the new info that a source has been found. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please stop making this claim. We've already discussed, creation of an article which is substantially different from a deleted article is not a policy violation. I'd prefer this to be on deletion review also, simply because it will look more legitimate if it passes, but there is no real reason it needs to be there. JoshuaZ 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Consensus? Where? --AceMyth 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. At the last AfD and at DRV. --Rory096_(block) 19:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how exactly do you define consensus? Kotepho 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A reliable source has been found. Personally, I think that clinches it. Mister Five 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues of process aside - Keep, unless one argues that the article in the newspaper itself is somehow faulty, thus presenting us with the very troubling proposition of Wikipedia's constant and unjustified reliance on unsourced sources throughout virtually all of its articles (and even if the aforementioned sources will be successfully sourced, this inevitably raises the issue of whether we should accept these new so-called sources, as they are similarly unsourced, etc.). --AceMyth 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry, wasnt signed in - Lessthanthree 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is fundamental to life! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speedcrash (talk • contribs) . Note also that this user has only one other contribution. JoshuaZ 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also note that it was almost a year ago and it was vandalism. --Rory096_(block) 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's notable and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrazad (talk • contribs) and is user's first edit. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I honestly don't see any good reason this article should be deleted. The phenomenon obviously exists, it's clearly notable and not just something "made up in school one day", and we now have a major, reliable source verifying it. If this article is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I don't see how the vast majority of internet memes articles are. (I suppose those should all be deleted as well, then?) —smably 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'd vote keep usually but this was a clear violation of policy. Delete it and restore it when its restorable per policy. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule Team Delete. Wikipedia's civility rules prevent me from saying what I really think about the person who'd write an article about this once, and the words I would choose to describe someone who created this article a fourth time would crash the servers. RGTraynor 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you bothered to look at the previous deletion discussions you would find that it survived the first two deletion discussions, so you don't need to worry about your choice descriptions since that didn't occur. JoshuaZ 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and keep deleting. The external link in the current article is a primary source excluded per WP:RS. Henning Makholm 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The relevant source is the Belgian newspaper which meets RS. Please read the above. JoshuaZ 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete, delete. This article was already deleted as a result of a recent AFD, then put through a Deletion Review. The only supposed "source" for this was a small newspaper article that looks suspiciously similar to the WP article that was deleted. It was brought up during the DRV and was taken into account by the admin who closed it. Their decision was to keep deleted, and protected the article from recreation.
  However, the protection was removed and the article recreated by the very same user/admin who initiated the DRV in the first place! I can't be the only one who sees a problem with that, and I noted it on the article's talk page.
  This article was recreated against policy, and it needs to be sent to the grave again. WarpstarRider 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Utterly false. The Belgian article was not brought up in the Deletion Review. And the claims that the newspaper article looks similar to WP are again false. If you are going to argue for deletion make a half-way decent attempt please. JoshuaZ 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would advise you to check the archive again. It was brought up toward the end and was mentioned by the closing admin. WarpstarRider 20:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm sorry, your right, it was mentioned at the very end of the discussion. Never mind now the fact that many of the objections about verifiability specifically mentioned a lack of newspaper reports. I will interpret your lack of comment on the matter of the newspaper article being similar to the Wikipedia article as a sign that you are no longer defending that claim. JoshuaZ 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more urban dictionary than wikipedia -Bottesini 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The newspaper source already seems to have been shot down in DRV wasn't accepted by the closing admin in the DRV, and this article clearly doesn't meet WP:V without it. Furthermore, the article was recreated out of process, as noted by WarpstarRider. If people want it restored, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review again. BryanG 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the newspaper source was brought up well after most of the debate and even after the debate was copy+paste moved to a subpage (thus not on people's watchlists). Kotepho 21:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think it's fair to say it was "shot down" in the deletion review. The only comment made on it after it was brought up was by the closing admin. And I see no reason why a newspaper article should be considered unreliable just because it's not sourced. I know of virtually no newspaper articles that are. Mangojuice 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I changed my reasoning accordingly. The reason the source of the article is important (at least to my understanding) is that there was some talk on Talk:The Game (game) about whether the article used WP as a source. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but that is one of the arguments being used against the newspaper article. At any rate, these are things that need to be brought up in another DRV. Quoting directly from WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." This is what should have been done in this situation, instead of going against a just-closed DRV and restoring the article. BryanG 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if Deletion Review were the correct place to take this discussion, it seems to be pretty policy-obsessive to vote for deletion now solely based on that. Why not ask "If this were at deletion review" what would my opinion be? JoshuaZ 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Relist--oh wait =( Kotepho 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't feel I'm being policy-obsessive here. The fact is that both the most recent AfD and the DRV have been closed as "delete". I believe it sets a dangerous precedent if we allow users to ignore two successive debates and recreate a substantially similar article just because one source has been found. That's exactly what DRV exists for, as I noted above. To answer your question, I would probably say that the article is non-notable and vote to keep the article deleted anyway, so my vote stands. BryanG 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for my 4th vote in this awesome ordeal. --Liface 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much effort into article if this is for real & notable. Reference links to foreign language (yes I speak it) Login page. 145 non-wiki Ghits. Plus essentially recreating deleted material.Bridesmill 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I transcribed (most) of the article if you want to read it. The image cuts off part of it though. Kotepho 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that the number of unique Google hits is NOT a reliable metric. Google lists under 400 unique results for "Wikipedia". The total number of Google results has at least some significance, but as far as I can tell, the number of unique ones is completely arbitrary. —smably 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How many times do we have to discuss this? Delete! This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V. The discussion on this page has absolutely no impact on the existence of this article, because you cannot vote (or discuss) to overturn policy on AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk)
  • Comment: Why will it always violate WP:V? If the phenomenon were thoroughly researched and the results published by several reliable, independent sources, would you still claim that it violates policy? I can't imagine why it would. (For that matter, I don't see why anyone would claim that it currently does, except for the possibility that the newspaper article's authors got their information from Wikipedia, which should not be presumed to be the case unless there's any hard evidence that they did.) —smably 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Kernow on the talk. ~ PseudoSudo 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per previous results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game). A Belgian newspaper article that requires registration doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that a reliable source would otherwise give me. The link could be a link to the classified section, for all I know. The undeletion should have taken place at WP:DRV, not as part of a wheel war. Now that the page is back, the problems are back. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For a reason which for some reason no one here has stated yet, (or at least I think no one has stated it). This article doesn't make sense. After reading it I still don't understand what it is. "You are playing it right now"?!? What is that supposed to mean? "If you think about it you lose"?!! The whole article is utter non-sense. Also, I can't comment on the source since I dont know whatever language it's in. I'm surpised that so many people here know whatever language it is. Is it dutch? Tobyk777 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that many people have explained its rules and few have questioned them, I'm afraid that the problem here is on your end. The Game is sensical, if bizarre. It's an anti-memory game: the objective is not to think of it. --Kizor 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To those of you voting to delete it, what the hell more do you want? You ask for "real" sources. They're given. Its status as "notable" and "existent" has been confirmed after debating to death. Stop impeding the flow of accurate and unbiased information, especially on such a trivial topic. brabblebrex 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Existing reference insufficient. --Davril2020 10:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Referenced in a reputable newspaper, I feel this now meets verifiablity, which was the problem - notability seems fairly established. If you don't "understand" the newspaper source, there's a translation on the talk page.. --Fuzzie (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usual reasons for requiring sources is to avoid publishing incorrect information. However this "game" is a pure mental phenomenon, nobody claims that it "exists" in any other way except in the minds of people playing it. There seem to be sufficient evidence (even without the newspaper article that I cannot read) that a group of people exists that "play" the game as described in the article. Therefore the article is not incorrect. If it passes notability test then it should be kept.Vlad1 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless article that will not die! Adycarter 12:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm copying my comment from Talk:The Game (game) here, since many editors seem to regard WP:V as an annoying hurdle to be jumped over in order to write their article, rather than what an article should be based upon in the first place.

Yes. Of course [sources must be souced]. Always have and always will. WP:V is not a game. It's about letting readers know where the information originally came from. This source fails miserably to do that, unless they read this talk page and find that it probably came from, well, us.

• No Wikipedian who wasn't already "playing The Game" would read the newspaper article and consider it worth basing an article upon. Those thinking that this source is sufficient for an encyclopaedia article are in the same frame of mind of those who think that geological evidence proves the infallibility of the Bible and the existence of God. They started out with a theory, and then they looked for evidence, rather than vice versa. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.The game does exist. the page should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.60.239 (talk • contribs)
• Delete and protect as annoying internet meme, based on WP:V and notability. A single newspaper blurb (especially in a foreign-language newspaper) isn't enough for notability for something like this. Possibly the game is locally notable in Belgium, in which case it could get an article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Has anyone even accessed the Belgian article? The site is subscriber-only. Phr 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article has stirred up a huge amount of interesting discussion, but it boils down to the question of whether we should accept something that is real, despite it not being widely documented in traditional source material. I think that we should. The Game is a real phenomemon, and as such it is Wikipedia's duty to document it. By its very nature it does not have much written source material, but it is nevertheless not simply a 'childish game'. Daniel (☎) 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The primary concern was a lack of verifiable sources. a newspaper article (regardless of its country of origin) is verifiable. and regardless, it is blatantly obvious that The Game is notable, considering the vast quantity of discussion on this topic. Gsham 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is nonsensical. The fact that something is discussed on Wikipedia is not evidence of its notability or verifiability. Anyone can stir up a tempest in a teapot on Wikipedia. I should start an article called "Gsham sucks" and then create a large controversy over its existence. By your standards, said article would be notable because there would be a vast quantity of discussion on the topic. Get my drift? FCYTravis 08:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The link for the article doesn't work, not that I speak Dutch anyway (sorry Oma). Apart from the overall silliness of the game, I don't understand why the first rule isn't "You begin playing The Game when you have forgotten about it." Otherwise, you've lost upon finishing reading the rules. I also find the enthusiasm for the game inexplicable (it could almost be a subject for a sociological study). It reminds me of the politically incorrect elementary school "gay tests" and "retard tests" where whatever answer you gave "made" you gay or retarded. Шизомби 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very simple case of WP:V. Nothing to talk about really. rehpotsirhc 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia doesn't need to lose the game again. Bobyllib 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clever idea, glad I heard about it, but profoundly non-notable and unable to pass WP:V. -Colin Kimbrell 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I wanted a source, and one has been found. I wish it were in English because the majority of our readers can't read Dutch, but I trust the translation and I trust the newspaper. I do hope that someone contacts the author of the newspaper article to ask what sources he/she used in writing it... doing so will either confirm that we're now referencing ourselves circularly or will provide us with more sources for our own article. Until we can prove without a doubt that the author used our article to write his/hers, I'm going to assume he/she didn't, and hopefully that's not shooting myself in the foot. If the result is keep, it will require a fair bit of policing, I'm sure, to keep the original research and general cruft out, but the promise of cruft in the future is not a valid reason for deleting the article now. —Seqsea (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep the newspaper source makes 'the game' verifiable. James Kendall [talk] 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepThe content of the article is uniquely hard to pin a source down to. Meme phenomena tend to lack the publicity or scholarly research that an article on a current event or the astrolabe would. Specifically, addressing Gsham's point, it's a bit elitist to disregard any attempt at justification solely because the article doesn't happen to be in English. If it is really of that much concern, then maybe have it translated by someone? Or check the qualifications on the publisher itself? If it's a newspaper issue, and if it can't be translated, then see if the source is a credible one. Reiterating: Memes are regional, cultural, etc. phenomena. Just because the New York Times has not piped in an opinion does NOT mean that the information is either any less true or any less informative than any other regional quirks.

Now, certainly, if the article was blatantly dumb, then it merits deletion. However, I can testify that this actually is a true meme. I've talked to people across the state that play this 'game' just as myself and my friends do. Cheers.Mordacil 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: This user has only 17 edits, and the edit to add this recommendation was the first in three months. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not hurting anything by being there. VegaDark 00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in favor of keeping this, but arguments like that do more harm than good. If that were the standard almost nothing would be deleted. Thankfully, it isn't the relevant standard. JoshuaZ 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should have explained myself better. Considering the amount of people that wish to keep this article, I feel this is an appropriate response. For a normal AfD I would not use this as justification, however in a case where there is a heated debate with people for and against keeping an article I am always inclined to vote keep as it isn't hurting anything by being there, and will infact cause more hurt by it being deleted. VegaDark 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I tried searching usenet for +"think about the game" +lose. I figured those would be in all versions of the game; I didn't find any of the results referring to this game. The only post I can find definitely relating to it is one from April 17, 2005 that links to the WP page. There's one from February 20, 2006 that states "You made me lose The Game" which might refer to it. I think it's important to find references that predate the article's first creation on WP. When was that? The first VFD was posted 30 Sep 2004. Шизомби 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) On April 6, 2004 195.92.67.75 added a description of the game to the disambig page The Game diff. Assuming that's the earliest reference to it on WP, I think the reference challenge is to find references that predate that. Otherwise, WP could well be the source of this meme, and that would be self-reference. Шизомби 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one minute of simple Googling found this. There are others, I just grabbed the first. --Kizor 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I hadn't tried searching the web for the oldest references to it, only usenet. Internet Archive has an archive of that page dating back to Dec 31, 2003, so I think the date on the page can be taken as true (I would not put it past the fans of this game to forge a datestamp). More references like that would be good. Шизомби 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to finally get rid of all this argumentation. It sounds like a spectacularly stupid game anyway. JIP | Talk 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument definitely sounds... I wish I could say "unique". --Kizor 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been established prior to this that the game passes WP:N, and with the newspaper article it appears to pass WP:V. Wikipedia's role is to report on what other's say, and provide a source, not to make an original judgement on the source. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 08:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please sir, can I have some more sources? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still no reliable sources, still unverifiable, still violates WP:NFT. Alphax ^τεχ 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly written and unverified apocrypha. Precisely what an encyclopedia is not for. FCYTravis 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Appears in the press. A global phenomenon, apparently.--Primetime 09:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also Comment: After all this furor, it sadly seems that many are now voting for or against the Game, instead of for or against the inclusion of an article about the Game on its present merits. In particular, a number of deletion votes have been cast on the basis that we had this discussion already, making no acknowledgment of the changed situation. --Kizor 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The Danish newspaper is an obviously reliable source and there's zero evidence it was based on the original Wikipedia article. The Game is both highly notable and now reliably sourced. --Clyde 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not trying to get on your case personally, but there is no Danish newspaper source, making the rationale for your recommendation dubious. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He probably meant to say Belgian newspaper. It's probably just an honest mistake, and it certainly shouldn't invalidate his rationale and vote to keep the article. BryanG 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• An announcement. There is no point in continuing this disussion. WP:V cannot be trumped by AfD. There are no verifiable sources. This article, therefore, cannot continue its existence. Deletion is the only result allowable by policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, as multiple people have pointed out, the newspaper article does meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As multiple people have pointed out, the newspaper article, written in a language most people here cannot read, cannot be accessed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it can be, as someone posted a scan of it on the talk page, but you're not missing anything. It is next to useless with respect to WP:V, as it does not explain how it got its information (which newspapers do generally do when they have a source, contrary to Ssbohio's claim, even if it's unnamed "senior government officials") and we're forced to resort to "they probably know what they're talking about". It seems to score some points in the notability game, though, but personally I don't play it, hence my own continued deletionist stance. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query, where does WP:V say that a newspaper article is only valid if the article says where it got its information? I see nothing of the sort there. JoshuaZ 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable". In bold text, no less. Generally, that starts with knowing where in the nine hells the information came from. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a much stricter application of that sentence than we normally use. I'm particularly puzzled by your comment that a newspaper saying "senior government officials" is in fact any better, since we have no guarantee that that came from such officials at all. Would you feel better if the article said "we heard about it from all the annoying idiots who keep playing the game and announce 'I lost' in the middle of lectures" or "we kept hearing friends talk about it?" You seem to be creating an unusually high bar of verifiability for this article. Could you please explain what a source would need to say for it to meet your standards on this matter? JoshuaZ 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We didn't read this on Wikipedia." --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried hard to see each side's point on this, since I am uninvolved in this particular article, having had no edits or previous votes. Until I read the article here in Wikipedia, I hadn't heard of this "game." As a fourth attempt at deletion, I'm having a hard time seeing a consensus to delete. Further, when a source is provided to overcome the WP:V issue, those in favor of deletion argue against the verifiability of the newspaper story, despite any evidence that calls its verifiability into account. Secondary sources fall within WP:V and to presume the story unverifiable because it contains no explicit sourcing (in keeping with newspaper tradition) doesn't assume good faith on the part of the keep faction. If the newspaper story is dubious (for reasons grounded in fact), then this article can't rely on it for sole support.

  In the end, having read the discussions here, at DRV, and in the talk page, I have to come down in favor of keeping the article. I can't see where a consensus for its removal has been demonstrated, and the fact that it has been ruled a keep in AfD twice, but forum-shopped back to AfD by those favoring deletion, then forum-shopped again into DRV by those favoring keeping the article, only to end up back here again. This has taken on an unpleasant aspect through all these actions, and I find it hard to believe that a true consensus in favor of deletion could be reached. The article needs wikified & sourced, but not deleted. So, keep. --Ssbohio 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is incorrect. Every previous discussion has resulted in keep deleted. There was no need to recreate this AfD, it could have been speedy deleted this time as recreated content, and should have been. Consensus has been clear in every occasion. It has not been ruled a keep in AfD twice, and even if that were, true, violatons of Wikipedia policy are not negotiable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? it wasn't ruled a keep twice? what about this and this? and how specifically does a (non-english) newspaper article not meet verifiabilty standards? Gsham 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Zoe is right in one way. It's blatantly obvious that, with one or two meagre exceptions, no-one is satisfied by the newspaper article except those who were satisfied with an article that had no sources in the first place. At this point in time, the result of this discussion must be the same as the last one ('delete'). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. You're right that we have as much consensus as we had before.. which is to say, we don't have consensus. The result of the last one was delete not because of consensus but because of no satisfactory answer to the verifiability concerns. Now there is an answer, which makes a difference. Mangojuice 14:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, it's hardly satisifed anyone, so as I read it there is still no satisfactory answer to the verifiability concerns. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not really notable, etc. Freddie 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. OK. you can look and see i'm a long term editor with a long AfD history. Prior to ever going on Wikipedia I had learned "The Game", and I'll be forced to play forever. It's a real phenomenon. How does one verify a game is actually played? One can't unless they play it themselves or have seen or heard it played. Beer Pong has an entry. Prove that people play it. This is the same idea - it's silly.--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll bite :) There is the National Beer Pong Leage, and the game has been mentioned in the New York Times [1]. It's also been in a whole host of other papers; I'd give you links, but I can only find them on LexisNexis. (Apparently it was even banned by a city council.) It's easy to verify that games like tag and hide-and-go-seek and Monopoly are played. It's less easy, but still possible, to prove that many less-timeless games are played. —Seqsea (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hrad to call over wether to delete or not. By the looks of things, this will be completely nn in a matter of a decade and will be deleted then, so why not now? But I mean, why has this rolled over to its 4th Afd? This is just Over the top. J.J.Sagnella 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this is deleted again, we'll probably get a 5th debate when it gets a passing mention on TechTV or some other geek satellite channel at 2 in the morning. "It was on TV! We won The AFD Game! Speedy Strong Ultra KEEPALITY!" --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remind me how your comment is an argument for keeping the article, a constructive addition to this discussion, or anything other than an ad hominem attack on those who believe this article is worthy of Wikipedia. The behavior on both sides of this debate has been very disappointing; you're not helping. —smably 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete‼ Jesus Christ! How many times are we gonna do this? Delete with extreme prejudice and nuclear-protect the page so that no one but Jimbo or the Secretary-General of the United Nations can ever unprotect it again. --phh 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for that reasoned rational response, why not take a look at what the new source is and think about it rather than simply reacting? JoshuaZ 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snipeback Hey, thanks for your in-no-way-insincere advice! In fact, my last word on the subject before today not only addressed the newspaper story specifically but even supported the reinstatement of the article because of it. The decision to end the deletion review was made by the closing admin with full knowledge and consideration of the Belgian article, and I understand and support his decision and the reasons behind it. Two days later, with no new information having emerged in the meantime, the admin who originally dragged this article's sorry carcass to deletion review in the first place brought it back from the dead, in defiance of process, and that admin should be disciplined for it. And that brings us back to the present, and my question stands: How many more times are we gonna have to do this? --phh 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed your previous comment. Please accept my apologies. JoshuaZ 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no reason you should have remembered that comment, or remembered that it was from me. And certainly my initial comment here wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I live in Singapore halfway around the world from the United States and even my friends have mentioned it to me (they are non-Wikipedians by the way). So, I don't have any external sources to back its existence, but I have heard of it myself, so pardon my original research. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Curious how such a (seemingly harmless) article provokes such a strong, sometimes very emotional response. Is it not an evidence that the article is probably interesting to many people? Maybe we should put the question of its agreement to the letter of the policy aside (as it seems that people disagree about it). If it is an interesting article, and it does not contain any false information, what is the harm of keeping it? Frankly I do not understand "strong deletionists". Do they really feel it is one of the worst articles in Wikipedia? --Vlad1 01:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps they feel that if this page is kept it will lead to a slippery slope of other non-notable games being created. It won't, though. I don't understand the deletionists. This game is not hurting anyone. --Liface 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A slippery slope is a definite concern. The fact is that the the notability and verifiability of this could be seen as in the gray area, and the last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become a collection of random memes. So while I disagree with those editors, one should see where those who have objected on WP:N/WP:V grounds are coming from. JoshuaZ 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Believe me, this "game" is a real thing. I first heard about it up at Georgetown University where I go to school, and when I went to the University of Florida to visit some friends they knew about the game. This isn't some sort of joke, it is a legitimate social pheomenon that deserves an article more than many articles currenlty on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.223.226 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, just barely. Notability is beyond question; verifiability is a serious issue, but has been addressed sufficiently to prevent deletion. If non-English sources violate WP:V, a lot of my own work on Korea-related articles will go down the tubes. If unsourced newspaper articles are unacceptable -- well, then this article is just the tip of a whole sunken continent of deletions. -- Visviva 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. This certainly seems to be held to much stricter standards than your average article. --Kizor 07:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference here is, this is supposedly a widespread, global phenomenon. It ought to have gotten more coverage than one small Belgian newspaper article. WarpstarRider 07:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A widespread global phenomenon that by its very nature avoids mention in the media. (Funny story: last night before going to sleep I took a person on my MSN buddy list at random, said "you just lost The Game" and signed off. This morning there was a "you bastard!" post on the forum I know him from. We've never broached the subject.) --Kizor 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No! No it does not "by its very nature avoid mention in the media!!" Not everyone who hears about it wants to "play." Some people, believe it or not, consider the whole thing moronic and don't even accept the fascist dictum that everyone who's heard about it is "playing" it whether they want to or not. There is nothing preventing any reliable source anywhere from taking notice of it other than that they believe a stupid, pointless "game" "played" primarily by bored and often chemically altered college students is beneath their notice. And, wow, maybe they're right. --phh 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment This is a good point, I doubt the nature of the game would stop a reporter from discussing it in an article if they thought it was notable. That said, I refuse to play/acknowledge the game among people who are playing it, and I still think that the article meets WP:N and WP:V. (Also, my impression is that it is more often played by bored highschool students than chemically altered college students) JoshuaZ 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Also... while this didn't directly affect my vote, I would advise many of those arguing for deletion to use more measured language, if they actually wish to be taken seriously. While I realize that much of the hostile, abusive language directed at this article has become commonplace on AfD, these tirades certainly violate WP:CIVIL as I understand it. -- Visviva 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Funny. The Game obviously exists and everybody here already lost it, because we thought about it. We would not write comments here if we would still play it --Roy-SAC 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've not voted on any of the previous AfDs on this article - however I have watched them all with great interest. Come on guys, this is clearly much worse than a lot of the stuff on WP:LAME. Policy wise I'd say that I'd have to lean towards Delete even though this damn game is clearly an interesting social phenomenon. Hopefully a non-circular source will appear soon so it can be kept. QmunkE 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is notable and verifiable. Delete voters have yet to quote any Wikipedia policy which invalidates the source.

From WP:NOR:

"In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy" Kernow 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that would refer to a controversy about a piece of information that differs between two or more sources, not whether wikipedians can decide as to whether a single source is a legitimate basis for an article or not. To refer to that latter "controversy" in the article would be self-reference. Шизомби 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"controversy...over what constitutes a legitimate...source." Kernow 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that. However, I believe it means if there is a controversy about what constitutes a legitimate source, that information is to be compared with information from another source and the difference between those compared in the article. Noting that wikipedians don't agree about whether a source is notable or reliable in the article would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Шизомби 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. wikipedia:Verifiability problem. A newspaper is the source of news, not facts. Since the quoted newspaper article does not quote any reputable sources, this publication is classified as rumor in my world. `'mikka (t) 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mikka Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the original version of the page was linked from the BBC. If the BBC reckon it exists, then that is the most reputable source in the world. Deleting a page just because people thing the subject is childish is madness, and suggesting something does not exist just because you haven't heard of it is grossly naive. The Game exists, and therefore requires an encyclopedic article on wikipedia. DJR (Talk) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I knew of its existance back in 2001 and have only been using/editing for a year. I don't see how this is any less notable then the huge bios of Star Wars characters, or the Spoo article on the front page.... (whoops forgot to sign) Enotayokel 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely true, we will eventually have verifiability. This article was nominated for deletion five times, and it only got deleted by luck last time. This is definitely a noteworthy and worthwhile phenomenon. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For the article to be kept, there needs to be verifiablity now, not a promise of it some time in the future. And this is only the fourth time this was nominated; the third resulted in deletion because of policy, not "by luck," and the deletion was upheld in DRV. (It really shouldn't even be here now.) WarpstarRider 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - the nature of The Game makes verifying it difficult, for now. This is one of the borderline articles that separates Wikipedia from Britannica. There are many articles on Wikipedia with less verified sources than The Game, but they exist simply because they aren't notable enough to garner the kind of attention that this article does. Just let it stay, let the sources appear as they will with the number of devotees that will keep on adding to the article, and let the whole debate die. - dharmabum 10:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

"If you can verify this, then it can be added back." - Rory096

After a source is found, Rory096 votes "Strong delete" because "The newspaper has less than 75,000 readers". This is more than 1 out of every 150 Belgians.

"If it's so damn notable someone other than bloggers should have written about it." - Sam Blanning

After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Sam Blanning votes "Delete" because "there is a high likelihood that the 'source' was in fact based on our article". There is no evidence for this, especially considering the two articles document the same phenomenon.

"Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity." - User:Zoe

After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Zoe votes "Delete" because "This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V".

"I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the original_research tag" - phh

After a source is found, phh votes "Delete!!" with no reasonable explanation.

"Keep deleted until criteria for includion in wikipedia are met: independent reputable source." - `'mikka

After an independent reputable source is found, Mikka votes "Delete" because "A newspaper is the source of news, not facts."

A worrying number of delete voters refer to the newspaper's language as if this somehow reduces its reputability. (including Stifle who nominated this for deletion "there is now a source of some sort. I don't understand the newspaper source, however")

Although it has a relatively small circulation, it is read by a significant proportion of Belgians (about 1 in 150). It is likely that hundreds of thousands of people now play The Game as a result.

Even if the paper is based on the Wikipedia article, for which there is no evidence, someone has yet to quote Wikipedia policy which would invalidate the source because of this.

The Game was created before the Wikipedia article existed. Although I cannot prove it, I have been playing since 2002. I am fairly certain this blog entry pre-dates the earliest Wikipedia article. Kernow 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have to scroll down to the bottom to see the earliest entry. --Anaraug 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I don't think it's possible to interpret the article as other than a unacceptable document for wikipedia--imputing as it does an extremely malicious intention to the Site and our research and content policies. I accept that it may not have been wise to speedy it; deletion is like that. So I find the situation of the consistent undeletion and deletion of this article disruptive, but the constant outcries for it trips my troll alarm. I honestly don't believe this article to be notable enough, sourced properly or even apporpriate for this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Extremely notable, verifiability seems to depend on interpretation, and therefore the controversy over the legitimacy of the source should be included in the article as per WP:NOR as first mentioned by Kernow: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy" --Anaraug 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's clear that several AfD regulars simply have a vendetta against this article now because the previous nominations have annoyed them. You asked for verifiability, and you got it. Claiming that this newspaper is not verifiable is ludicrous. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers of people who believe that newspapers are ultimate truth (possibly after Bible or Qu'ran) is amazing. I hope that the "Disappearing blonde gene" story will be instructive for some believers in printed matter. `'mikka (t) 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a funny link. We all know that just because something is printed doesn't mean it's true. But being printed in a source such as a newspaper is generally taken as some fairly good evidence, particularly by the WP:V policy. Do you have a reason to doubt this newspaper article? What part of it would be in doubt, anyway? Right now I have the amusing idea of this paper subsequently publishing a retraction: "The 'Game' that we described in our previous edition was found not to exist. It was made up by malicious Wikipedia editors. Nobody actually plays it. We apologize for the error." Except in Dutch, of course. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When in doubt, Keep. Strong keep. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to go with Keep. I wouldn't have even learned about The Game without this article. It's significant, has good information, and is encyclopedic. ShadowMan1od 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, minor pop society fad. Not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is "record what the human race has learned", not "node what you know" like Everything2. silsor 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I learned to play 'The Game' this summer, from my friends at camp. Trust me, it's real, and you guys made me lose. AmethystAngel 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Could people who are voting keep please vote for reasons that are related to policy and the guidelines not whether you played at camp or not. I've been arguing to keep this, possibly against my better judgement, but it won't help me or the closing admin at all if the AfD is full of keep votes that are completely irrelevant. Furthermore, it will very likely color the closing admin's attitude against the keep arguments. JoshuaZ 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep by all means, this is encyclopedic and useful. Twi20Pi 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has a mere 39 edits.[2] -Zero^Talk 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are hundreds, even thousands, of hits on google for this. This does not make the article any more or less verifiable. What it does, however, do, is make it (in my opinion) notable. There's also the numerous people here on Wiki from across the world who say they've played it. Of course, I'm not sure what the person who put this up for deletion is intending to get at with notability, since it's a bit of a nebulous concept (at least as I'm reading it). The person who sent this to AfD explaining what they mean by declaring this article non notable would help. Of course, as far as I can tell, notability isn't specifically Wikipedia policy.

Secondly, there's the matter of NFT, but I think that if we resolve Verifiability, then NFT becomes a moot question. Which, of course, brings us back to the original question (the one causing so much discussion): Is this verifiable? Which leads me to ask, what (if anything) makes this article unfit? Admittedly, I'm not an expert on Wiki Policy, but could someone point out to me what makes this new article unverifiable? I understand hesitancy to use an article printed in a language many do not speak, but the policy on Reliable Sources states that English sources are prefered when possible. This seems like a juncture in which English sources are not possible. Further, the article goes on to state

"Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

I suspect that no one will be heavily quoting the article, but even if they were, since this is intended as a source, it will surely be linked. Further, Kernow has raised some interesting points, both here and on the talk page, about the reliability of the (or any) source, and cases in which primary sources are acceptable.

That said, my vote is to Keep

(On a side note, I've seen a surprising number of votes based not on anything policy, but on thinking the article is stupid or good, or other subjective evaluations.) Darquis 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User only has 33 edits. [3] -Zero^Talk 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even relevant here (other than in the avoidance of sock puppetry)?Darquis 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is a touchy process, and has become more and more inatricate as time goes on. Notes of recent wikipedians are simply made on discussion pages for various reasons, one of which is sockpuppetry. Please don't take offense, your viewpoint is just as valid as anyone elses. -Zero^Talk 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ashibaka tock 17:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually meat-puppetry is more important - i.e. someone asks their friends to come vote for it. However, it is also significant in that it is not a democratic vote - it is a collective rumination on the article in relation to policy. We logically should expect more experienced users to have a thorough grasp of the regulations and to be able to orient their votes based on previous AFDs they've participated in. --Davril2020 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for pointing out people with only one or two edits - but 33 is quite a bit. --Kizor 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the clarification. I can see why it would be a problem (and that this particular AfD is treated like democracy trumps policy) and why my account might be a concern (a low edit ratio with a focus on the article up for AfD). No offense taken.Darquis 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Cleanup because it's notable. Forget all of the wikipedian politics surrounding the article, because in the end it boils down to whether or not the article is notable. IMHO and based on the evidence that I've read here, I think that the article should be kept.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable because in the end however notable it is, WP:V is firm policy. Notability is only a guideline and does not trump policy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. the wub "?!" 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I originally closed this AFD, but I should not have done so as, among other things, I was too involved in setting it up. I think that a few admins should get together on WP:AN and decide it there. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I knew about this game from experience about 2 years ago. I checked Wikipedia then to see if we had an article on it. Sure enough, we did. That was good enough for me then. WP:V has a flaw. Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. In the case of The Game, it certainly exists, there is sufficient Google hits to document the information and therefore verify the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm in favor of keeping this article due to sourcing but the above argument is simply ridiculous. Wikipedia should not be allowed to report on new facts. See WP:NOR. JoshuaZ 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy delete with extreme prejudice. Besides being a recreation of deleted content (which it is, references to unknown-sourced Belgian newspapers be damned), it still doesn't hold up against WP:V (which is, lest we forget, the entire reason the article was eventually deleted in the first place and the reason it didn't come back after WP:DRV). Furthermore, if this page is deleted I would like to see it locked against all editing (not just from non-logged-in users, and except possibly certain admins) to prevent an article which went through due process in AfD, due process in DRV, was deleted, and is now up for a FOURTH DELETION from being recreated again. Kinitawowi 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And if you noticed the first two of those AfD said keep. JoshuaZ 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has never been deleted through the standard process; it was deleted over a lack of consensus by an admin who used WP:V to trump the AfD discussion and who later said in the DRV that he regretted his decision (I think I got him confused with Ashibaka). The words "fourth deletion" are misleading when the article was only deleted once, and that deletion was dubious. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Sean Black did not comment on the DRV. He certainly did not say that he regretted his decision. —Seqsea (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Everything above is correct except the detail that I don't think Sean said he regretted it. The main point, however, still stands: calling this the fourth deletion, is just wrong. JoshuaZ 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Looks like WP:V is doing it's job just right, it's not flawed. We are not here to document social phenomena, we are here to report what reliable sources say. If there are no reliable sources, delete until there are. The newspaper article in question does not count. There are other places for this type of thing, Wikipedia is just not it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commennt And just why does the Newspaper article not count? JoshuaZ 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has ever given me a good reason why the newspaper article does not count. Is it because it isn't in English? That is an obviously spurious claim. Is it because it is subscriber only? Also unfounded. Is it because it doesn't cite it's source? What? Most newspaper articles do not nor books. Small subscription base? It has around 8% of the subscription base of the Wall Street Journal Online. It isn't exactly small. Kotepho 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't think that one single foregn-language newspaper article is a bit thin for something which is asserted to be so globally pervasive? You don't think that perhaps that was just an example of a protologism actually achieving its aim? Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Considering the views of the majority of users, plus the fact I can no longer use Wikipedia due to this article, I now strongly believe this article is in no way adding to the quality of the site, and is actually devaluing the rest of the information available via the wiki software. Delete with immediate effect IMO. Lessthanthree 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm... how exactly is this preventing you from using Wikipedia? -- Visviva 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because every time they come here they think of this article, thus losing the game in the process. VegaDark 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.