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 was delete. I could opt-out and take the easy path (close as "no consensus"), but that would be wrong. The arguments to delete are plenteous and well-argued, while the keep arguments are (save one or two) entirely unconvincing.--Ezeu 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions (Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, AFD April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus), and most recently AFD July 06 - no consensus.

As Proto said it in starting the 5th AFD for this article 6 months ago, "Frankly, it is time this went." I agree. It has now been 6 months since this article was last nominated for deletion. During that period the article has been tagged as needing verifiable sources, none have appeared. And it is my belief that none ever will. This article is simply not verifiable. The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all. As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth. Such a thing should not be tolerated in any true encyclopedia. Delete KnightLago 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is an external site canvassing for this article and that we've had a few SPAs already (plus a few Lazarus editors), I think its time for this banner, sadly. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unverifiable and mostly nonsense also seems to fail WP:NFT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Ah, my bête noire. Fails WP:V/WP:RS. The single foreign language article used in support of this article is not reliable - not a news article with proper vetting process, but a whimisical column; also the author appears to be playing "the game" himself. This article has been given ample time for better sources to show up and there has even been an online campaign with an its own special website tasked since March 2006 to find such references for the article or - indeed, to deliberately plant such references in the media - see this mission statement on the website:"The Lose The Game campaign is an attempt to influence major media outlets into covering The Game, thus providing "reliable sources" to cite on Wikipedia" and the list of reliable sources so far found or planted by the campaign. This has gone on too long. Let's finish this. Bwithh 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could the author not be playing The Game? Obviously he's heard about it. You're playing the game as well. --Liface 08:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This again?) No, I'm not - that's a logical fallacy. Just because a person has heard about the Game, doesn't mean they chose to play it. You may like to think they're playing it or losing it, but that's of no consequence to them. Bwithh 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's of no consequence to them doesn't mean they're not playing it. The first rule, "knowledge of The Game is the only thing required to play it", really should be written "knowledge of The Game means you are playing it", but that's informal writing. Hraesvilgr 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah if you rewrite the accepted standards of logic and the meanings of words in your own head, you can pretty much mould the world into whatever you like Bwithh

I can't find where you explained why this is a logical fallacy. Someone does not have to give consent to be a player of a game. In the example I gave in previous discussions, I can create a new game right now called Kernow's Game. Whoever next edits this page will win Kernow's Game. Now the next person to edit this page will win Kernow's Game whether they want to or not. I'm sure that many of the gladiators of ancient Rome did not want to participate either, but if they got killed they lost. If you think about The Game, you lose. Kernow 14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer and also note the lack of violent force exerted to control others involved in the current version of the Game Bwithh 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Morgen is one of the most popular Belgian national newspapers. The existence of savethegame.org is irrelevant to whether or not this article is verifiable. And of course he's playing The Game, we all are. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No we're not. That's a fallacy. see above. Bwithh 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you think a topic is silly is definitely not a justification for deletion. Rdore 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with a special nod to Bwithh above and his commentary on this. --Dennisthe2 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable sources. Shimeru 04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many is enough? 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple." Shimeru 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for arbitrary requirements! 71.63.10.204 23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is 'more than one' arbitrary? Proto::? 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, but only if we are into Wiki polices, like WP:NOTABILITY "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." This article has ONE small newspaper article. Sethie 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game must been known to 100,000 people from the De Morgen article alone, and it existed for at least 3 years before this was printed so is definately notable. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete nn. Just H 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the game exists, is notable, and will never die. --Liface 07:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Prove it with multiple reliable sources. Proto::? 10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The information on previous AFDs given at the top of this page is incorrect. The Feb 06 deletion was of a different article about the same game. It was deleted because this article existed. All the above delete votes claim this article to be unverifiable or lacking reliable sources. It has a reliable source, the De Morgen article. This article is verifiable and has a reliable source, and hence should be kept. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the De Morgen article is disputed Bwithh 09:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, User 61.7.151.188 has a whopping 2 edits to his name, both of them.... on this AFD. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, lacks multiple reliable sources so fails WP:V, and has done so since it was created. Proto::? 10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Roisterer 10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, A social engineering fad. Not notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost by definition, this is something made up one day. It isn't a board game or a computer game or anything similar; its a meme. It has been mentioned in one (1) newspaper, in a way that doesn't appear to be remotely close to the tone of a traditional newpaper article. I suspect this was a humor piece, at best. Furthermore, the presence of a website with the self-stated goal of convincing otherwise reliable sources to cover the topic for the purpose of earning recognition as a verifiable topic here is disturbing. Keeping in mind that the article itself suggests that knowledge of the game is scant in the article's likely audience (but high in places with heavy Wikipedia participation), I do not think it is a violation of good faith to believe the website's goal was successful, and that this article exists because De Morgan did not realize it was being used by those wishing to prop up a Wikipedia article. With the danger of incestuous amplification so high in this case, we should be demanding correspondingly stringent references ... not one unserious article in a relatively minor foreign-language newspaper. Serpent's Choice 12:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the purposes of accuracy, it should be noted that the De Morgen article appeared before SaveTheGame.org was created. —Seqsea (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NFT, and probably more. --Richmeister_talk 17:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. AgentPeppermint 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this article quantifies a point of human existence Nardman1 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SIR, and please don't try to be a lawyer. --Dennisthe2 23:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that WP:IAR obviously dictates that in extreme cases you shouldn't be anal about the lack of sources. Nardman1 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:IAR is for. It is for times that process interferes with the encyclopedia, not to evade the encyclopedia's core policies and inclusion requirements. Serpent's Choice 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the lack of sources doesn't mean it's not a real eventFuzzyStern 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)— FuzzyStern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This is true, but I would also like to point out that there are no sources other than my own first hand experience that indicates that, during the Rodney King riots in LA, an arbitrary channel flip produced the sentence, "That car is about the size of a football field." Nonetheless, while it happened, it is not here - except for my mention of an otherwise humorous event that you would have had to be there for the experience. Point being, it may have happened, but we need proof - and lack of article here is not proof that it didn't happen. --Dennisthe2 00:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia. Sethie 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(yes i can't find my old login, oh shucks) FuzzyStern 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case (I'm not saying it is or isn't), my appologies. The game has had issues with soliciting people to come here and vote.Sethie 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I play the game and just lost, you bastards. I'm certainly not putting this page on my watchlist ;) But its unsourceable at the moment. One newspaper article and the 'savethegame' website are a starting point/ If and when this gets reported on in more media, then an article can be written. I have a strong feeling that will happen. But for now, no --Robdurbar 22:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and definatly don't protect. We have established that it is something that exists to a certain extent which has a reasonable chance of becoming verfiable. Any unsourced entries that fail to pass A7 can be speedied. --Robdurbar 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given this article's history, if it is deleted, I strongly suggest salting. Any effort to build a verified, properly-cited version can be assembled in userspace and taken through WP:DRV. Keep in mind this was already deleted once twice, and its recreation was arguably out of process the last first time. Serpent's Choice 00:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) -- clarifying myself[reply]

To be anal so was its deletion, with rather more justification for being out of process. --Kizor 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant the first deletion, the one upheld as "keep deleted" via DRV. Frankly, the fact that we've had to go through this much nonsense at all, regardless of how well process has been upheld, should justify ensuring that, if deleted, it can only be recreated again if there is consensus to do so. No more unilateral actions, for the best interests of all sides. Serpent's Choice 06:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I've heard of this numerous times. It's popular among grade school kids, that's why you don't have too many sources. 71.63.10.204 22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  note that 71.63.10.204 has only 3 editsas at 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) and only one prior to commenting on this AFD. Gnangarra 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. That includes grade school gags, games, jokes, fun-making, etc. --Dennisthe2 23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IHEARDOFIT does not trump WP:V. Serpent's Choice 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might want to try WP:ILIKEIT instead, covers it I believe. --Dennisthe2 23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick facebook search gives several "global" groups with 1000+ total (reg. req'd). I realize that a facebook group isn't a quantifier of notoriety but it serves to indicate, at least, that this is somewhat more than something made up in school one day. Westerly 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook groups are not a reliable source Bwithh 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Dec 25th, Westerly has 4 edits.Sethie 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Dec 27th, WP:BITE is still a guideline. rspeer / ???ds? 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook groups, used as a source for modern sociological research, can certainly indicate that the topic is known to a broad and diverse number of people, and that The Game is not confined to only one school or geographic region. Zachlipton 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Googling for I just lost the game will get you almost 10,000 results. If we can have 57 unsourced variants of Tag (game), why can't we have The Game (game), which has a newspaper article? --Bkkbrad 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This doesn't look like a winnable battle at this point. Until there are more verifiable resources, people will keep on VfDing this article. I hope that once verifiable articles are found, they will be collected on SaveTheGame.org until the article can be recreated. --Bkkbrad 02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INN. Tag (game) is a train wreck at the moment. It shouldn't be something to aspire to. Serpent's Choice 01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling hits does not satisfy WP:N. Most of the hits are off blogs. Sethie 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that WP:INN says "Notability of internet memes is widely disputed." Just because you say it's not notable is your opinion. Nardman1 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where I said it is not notable? I said a large # of google hits does not satisfy WP:N, which says, ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."Sethie 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your scroll bar is broken. Right up the page: "I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)" Nardman1 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern about my scroll bar. Now, please show me, in that quote, where I say it is not notable! I say, "I care if it meets WP:N, and it does not." Sethie 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then Clabbers, Egyptian Ratscrew, Bloody Knuckles, He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, Thumb wrestling, all have inadequate verifiability status. Games are inherently less verifiable than than academic subjects. Perhaps the real discussion should be about the standards for verifiability of individual games? --Bkkbrad 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time! Sound like a great discussion, but NOT here. Please disucss that: [[1]]Sethie 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A great many articles require further verification. That is one of the long-term challenges facing Wikipedia. Someone with a book about children's games can probably reference many of the above, while some articles in that vein will eventually be merged elsewhere or deleted. The article under review here, however, does not appear to be verifiable, and, furthermore, has been through the AFD process now six times with no better documentation to show for it than one Dutch-language newspaper article that, based on its apparent tone, clearly had a generous editor. Serpent's Choice 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just upgraded the references of all the articles mentioned above by Bkkbrad. The only one which still has problems in my opinion is Bloody Knuckles. (He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not was interesting - French origins with references going back to at least the 19th century Bwithh 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NOR, and i suppose a whole bunch of other polices as well dposse 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Doesn't in any way fail WP:NOR. --Clyde 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Not failing one guideline as a reason to keep? Interesting vote!Sethie 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  My vote wasn't based on that alone, I was just responding to the vote above mine. This article has survived for years, and should continue to survive. Its topic, along with its history, are notable for many reasons, and should be included in this encyclopedia. --Clyde 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If it didn't fail WP:NOR it would be fully referenced and sourced. It isn't. --Richmeister_talk 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity in wikipedia is anot a criteria for inclusion. "Notable for many reasons" is not a valid criteria per the wikipedia guideline WP:N. Having multiple sources however, IS. And this subject does not. Sethie 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt this has been an ongoing debate since 2004, since march 06 this notice has been soliciting sources for the article that meet WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY standards and it has only found one non-english reference. As for salting this article it has been previously deleted the recreated and deleted also been to DRV with keep deleted then it was recreated anyway, if its deleted any recreation should only occur via WP:DRV or WP:AN/I where notiablilty, and verifiable source can be discussed and reviewed first. Gnangarra 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - In my opinion, "The Game" has transcended generations, and I am incredibly surprised that nobody has written a scholarly article about something such as this, because it was a meme before a meme came into existence. Andy Saunders 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And until someone does, it is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Richmeister_talk 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the article (with much more than a passing mention of "The Game") needs to be published in a reputable journal or book from a reputable publisher Bwithh 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR, no reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why you feel the article is original research? Rdore 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shit, I just lost the game >_< --- RockMFR 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason given as to why we should keep the article. Proto::? 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sentence above has eleven words. --AceMyth 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A single newspaper article of somewhat dubious reliability is not enough to satisfy the verifiability concerns here. No other sources have been found in the many months since this whole thing started; thus, this is not an appropriate topic for this encyclopedia. WarpstarRider 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there proof of the newspaper's suddenly dubious reliability other than the fact that you're against keeping the article? --Kizor 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I said nothing about the newspaper; I was referring only to the article itself, as many others here already have. WarpstarRider 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. losethegame.com has a forum which claims 2356 users as of when I posted this. There are also links to four different Facebook groups, totalling 3,956 members, one of which having 1,878 members and one having over 1000 members at the University of Cambridge. You can also see there are people from multiple schools; I count about 40 universities in the first 100 people of the first group, as well as many universities with many players. I quickly found more groups with 3,975, 776, 767, 662, 484, 382, 292, 225, 215, 164, 150 and 114 members, and at least 70 more groups, starting here. (There are also 500+ group "hits" when searching "I lost the game", and many of them seem to be similar groups, raising the number even more.) That's easily 10,000 members, and even with a high incidence of overlap (which I haven't seen, considering the other groups aren't usually found in the "related groups" section, which seems to highlight groups with large overlap), there must be at least 4,000 considering the one group of 3,975. The groups state similar rules, if not the same rules, just using different words. To me, considering I'd guess that most people on Facebook are real people with real names, and that Facebook is a major Internet site, it looks like this is an activity participated in by many people from many places in the world, from a source that can't be discounted. It also seems unlikely that someone would join such a group without at least learning about the game. Also, while it is true that many groups link to the Wikipedia article, if the article was removed it wouldn't stop people from playing the game. Most of these groups are unlikely to change or be removed and anybody with a Facebook account can check that these groups exist. I'm not sure how best to include this in the article, but based on this, The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. Telso 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The forum and Facebook group membership don't count for much - the only thing you need to join a forum is a registered account. The only thing you need to join a Facebook group is to have a existing Facebook account and to click a couple of buttons. In any case, even if such membership data was interesting, the Facebook group with 1,878 members you cite has a messageboard with just 3 discussion topics and a whopping 31 posts plus a pictureboard with 279 posts with brief "hello" messages from people[2] Bwithh 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most groups on facebook of comparable size have only a few posts to their message board. Are you seriously suggesting that this group on facebook is popular because of sockpuppeting? Rdore 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment facebook and losethegame.com do not qualify under WP:RS. No matter how many people know about it, it still doesn't pass wikipedias policys (WP:V WP:NOTABILITY) as well as it falls under WP:NFT. And everyone seems to say that so many people play the game and have heard of it, yet know one i know has every heard of this game. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BwitthTelso you do a lot of great research and conclude, "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. " without refferencing the wikipedia POLICYS on verifiablity, reliability or notablity. Please, refference the policy not your opinion about the subject.Sethie 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I conclude that "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me"(???). Anyway, I referenced the policy WP:V and related guideline WP:RS in my very first comment in what after all is a joined-up discussion revolving around these source issues. I can keep repeating "Fails WP:V and WP:RS" in every comment I like if you want. Bwithh 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The notability does not need to be established by reliable sources. Only the facts of the article require reliable sources. Rdore 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to have to say delete. I've been looking around the internet for sources to verify the game, but I haven't found any. To be fair, I have heard of the game at my school, but, as User:Serpent's Choice noted, knowledge of the game is not enough for its inclusion in the encyclopedia. —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break for ease of editing (1)[edit]

• Delete per all delete votes above. Reliable Sources problems. Anomo 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt the earth, fuse the salt with nuclear fire The COI, POV-pushing, disruption, and self-reference problems created by the off-wiki campaign to generate press for this meme for the specific purpose of getting it into Wikipedia far outweigh any apparent crossing of the subject over the boundary of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are many somewhat notable subjects that aren't in Wikipedia and we will get by just fine if this stays one of them. (Encyclopedia Dramatica is another). This is one of those situations were a consensus departure from the notability/RS guidelines is the right thing. We should only relent on this deletion if the subject becomes truly iconic (e.g. it's on the covers of Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated all in the same week), at least 100x higher threshold than "notable". 67.117.130.181 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically you are saying that because you think the topic is silly, even if it is notable, the article should not exists? I don't see how this is any better than the delete vote at top which just said "dumb". Rdore 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say it was silly, I don't mind silly, there's tons of silly stuff in Wikipedia that I'm ok with. "Dumb" is different and is a good reason for deletion (we are not here to propagate stupidity). This particular article and the off-wiki efforts to get it into Wikipedia are WP:POINT#Gaming the system and deletion and salting is the correct remedy. Per Foundation counsel Brad Patrick:

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. [3]

He is talking about corporate spam/COI but it applies to this stuff too. The article is nowhere near important enough for it to be worth our tolerating such manipulation. Brad also says "ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur" -- difficult in a case like this, so we should ban (salt) the article instead. 67.117.130.181 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we are not here to propagate stupidity" - this is your personal opinion that the game is stupid. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Beyond which the goal of the article should not be to recruit people in to the game, but simply to present information about what it is. Your quote is also definitely not relevant. It talks about looking at other ways to prevent people who have a financial interest from manipulating because current measure aren't working. In addition, that doesn't even look close to an adopted guideline, it's just a discussion of how to deal with that issue. An issue which is only tangentially related to the one here because clearly no one is going to profit from the game being kept on, or removed from wikipedia.71.225.71.44 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is known to be real and notable. There is no doubt of its existence and nature. To destroy the article is to harm Wikipedia as a reference work. It has been noted that the De Morgen article is in a foreign language. If that's an argument, you're free to nominate the tens of thousands of articles on non-English things that rely on non-English sources. WP:V states that foreign sources should be treated the same if there's a published translation or the original is cited, as it is here. It has been noted that the existence of this article creates controversy and bad spirits. In no way is that more damaging than the alternative, letting one party have its way because it shouted louder. --Kizor 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against the De Morgen article is not that its in a foreign language. The argument is that the article does not appear to be a news report subject to the factual vetting process assumed by WP:RS but is rather a whimsical column. Furthermore, this column is the only published source that had been found. Moreover, the column asserts that this game is predominantly played in the USA and the UK - the two major English-speaking countries - and yet only this one Flemish newspaper column is available as published source. And keeping such an article with such tenuous and sligh referencing does do more harm than good to Wikipedia as it suggests that other articles can get away with such minimal and dubious referencing too, making a mockery out of WP:RS/WP:V. Bwithh 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bwithh here. I don't care at all that the article is in Dutch. A quality source is a quality source whether it is in English, Dutch, or Bantu. But this is not a quality source -- it does not read even a little bit like a serious newspaper article, and it is the only remotely appropriate source besides. WP inclusion policies typically require multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable coverage. This is not multiple. It is arguably less than reliable and quite possibly less than independent: the efforts that the game's advocates have been using off-WP serve only to raise the necessary bar; when an advocacy website states that it is attempting to arrange for media coverage for the purpose of concocting reliable sources, it should be absolutely guaranteed that WP will hold every single proposed reference to the highest possible standard. Wikipedia is not for this kind of bald-faced system gaming. Serpent's Choice 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Bwitth that the Dutch newspaper reference is lousy in terms of reliability and with Serpent's Choice that any new sourcing should be held to the highest standard. However, good documentation or not, I don't share Kizor's view that Wikipedia is harmed (in any substantial way) by losing this article. See WP:BIAS for how there's already a huge amount of stuff that we don't currently document that we really should (maybe we'll get to some of it, but for now, we're not exactly suffering from the absence). This article under discussion is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. It would matter if it was an important article (and we do rate some articles for importance). If it's unimportant, we can by definition afford to lose it no matter how thoroughly documented it is. The bottom line is: notability by RS is an argument favoring inclusion, but not an automatic discussion-stopper. In this case, it's outweighed by the other issues. 67.117.130.181 10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot." - Mailer Diablo (Admin who closed last AfD as No Consensus). Nothing has changed since the last AfD... Kernow 14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, nothing has changed, it still doesn't pass WP:N, which insists on MULTIPLE sources. Sethie 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but has WP:N changed since the last AfD? I don't remember it requiring multiple sources before. Kernow 14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really don't know much about the history of wp:n.... What I do know is that the first sentence of wp:n states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and that this article does not cover that.Sethie 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's approach to notability has evolved substantially since July. As of July 6, when the previous AFD closed, the essay on notability looked like this. That differs in a number of substantial ways from the current WP:N guideline. A great deal of community work, debate, and sometimes conflict went into the changes. Articles that were acceptable in July may not be now, just as articles that were acceptable in, say, 2004 may not be now. Consensus (and the guidelines) can -- and does -- change. Serpent's Choice 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. People pointing out that editors have only made a few contributions to Wikipedia (e.g. "That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia.") are wasting their time. As it says at the top "this is not a ballot". It is irrelevant how many contributions they have made. All that is important is the argument(s) they provide for whether or not the article should be kept. Kernow 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as that template itself notes, in AFDs where there is a reason to suspect outside organization might influence the discussion, it is completely appropriate to indicate which participants have little other Wikipedia presence. That is because established editors are more likely to understand concepts like verifiability, notability, and reliable sources as they are used here than are newcomers and outsiders, who, in this case, could conceivably include individuals rallied from savethegame. Serpent's Choice 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. As close to patent nonsense as I've seen outside articles speedied within minutes. The only reason I don't go for "delete and salt" is that there is at least one actual phenomenon called simply "The Game," a word game once popular in New York theatrical and social circles (whose rules I've completely forgotten). Robertissimo 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could be handled by giving the word game article a different name at first, then requesting a page move to recover the protected name. 67.117.130.181 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The fact that you think the topic is goofy is not ground for deletion. Rdore 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I come not as a drone propelled by the senseless campaign to support the article (indeed, I was unaware of such a campaign until reading this AfD), but as an interested project participant. Article quality could certainly be improved, but it seems rather unfair to call this "patent nonsense." As additional evidence for verifiability and notability, I offer a Facebook group dedicated to the game [4] with 4,000 members spanning the US. The game exists, it's been around longer then the Wikipedia article, and this article presents a publicly visible view of the game, not hidden behind the login walls of social networking sites. While outside campaigning for VfDs is certainly to be frowned upon, the article should be reviewed on its own merits, not the actions of its supporters. Zachlipton 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Facebook defence" has already been commented on above. Furthermore, the outside campaigning is but one element of the argument against this article (incidentally, even if Facebook groups were admissible as evidence - the 4,007 members of this Facebook group have made only 93 discussion board posts and 612 "hello" wall picture posts, meaning that at best, 17.6% of the group's members have made the most minimal contribution (one post) to the group) Bwithh 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was looking for other sources, and the other Wikipedias seem to have the same problem. The only different sources that are listed there are a page at bbc.co.uk and insertcredit.com. The BBC article is a user-created article for the "Hitchhiker's Guide Encyclopedia". I'm having issues figuring out if the article is reliable, since it does appear to be peer edited. I was unable to determine much about the relability of the other site. (If this is not an appropriate place to discus this I will gladly move it the the article's talk page.) —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC article you mention is on H2G2, which is peer edited, and not at all a reliable source. It would be like someone creating a Wikipedia page and using that as a reliable source for a further Wikipedia page. Of course, this does happen (see Walled garden). Proto::? 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I had assumed, but I figured a second opnion would help. Thanks. —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless properly sourced per verifiability and reliable sources policies. The five pillars are there for a reason, as far as I can tell. One of those pillars is neutral point of view, which cannot be acheived without the aforementioned policies. This isn't the place to argue notability or verifiability, this is the place to decide whether the article does that on its own. BigNate37_(T) 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct response for NPOV is not to delete the article. It is to put an NPOV tag on it and work to make the point of view neutral. Rdore 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been kept, it has had cleanup tags (as far as my limited inspection can tell), but it hasn't been fixed. I have no faith in this article's future. Let it be recreated when an editor can sufficiently address the problems with respect to core content policies. BigNate37_(T) 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has a reliable source. The article is verifiable. There is no requirement than notability be established by reliable sources, only that the facts in the article are verifiable. The game is certainly notable based on it's large internet popularity. Many delete nominations seem to be in bad faith: It's silly so there shouldn't be an article on it. Rdore 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires MULTIPLE SOURCES. End of story. Sethie 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have mentioned numerous web sources. My point was that the threshold for what is a reliable source and what is a source for proving notability are not that same. Rdore 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states several times the need for "published" and "reliable" sources. Only reliable sources can be used to judge notability. WarpstarRider 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the notability guideline, it seems that the wording has within the past month or two been changed from something along the lines of "multiple independent sources" to having the words published and reliable in there. Furthermore, from reading the talk page it sounds like this is a controversial change. I don't think that judging the notability of this article on the basis of a controversial portion of a guideline is a very convincing argument, especially when a lot of the pro-delete side here seems to be acting in bad faith. Rdore 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that when you don't like current wiki guidelines, you just, well ignore them. Also thank you for clarifying that you aren't very skilled at WP:AGF.Sethie 03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are delete votes that have comments like "dumb" and "mostly nonsense". There is another comment of the form "this has gone on long enough." I don't consider it an assumption that people making comment have already decided what they want and will do whatever they can to force the deletion through. Also that guideline which was changed a month ago, and labeled as "consensus" despite a vocal minority being opposed to it. Beyond which the guideline even explicitly states that guidelines are not set in stone.71.225.71.44 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have numerous sources, including one or two reliable ones, why is there only one source mentioned in the article? I'm afraid I haven't registered for the website which would allow me to stare at the Dutch source in bewilderment. Hence, delete unless fixed. If this wasn't the sixth nomination, I'd be willing to assume the article would be fixed after the AfD, but that doesn't seem to work for this article—it's not like it can never be recreated if someone takes the time to write it properly. BigNate37_(T) 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There areplenty of website about the game that could be cited. I was not of the impression that "hasn't been cleaned up yet," is a reason for deletion. 71.225.71.44 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that you assert that there are many websites about the game. However is it true any of them could be cited? Do any of these websites pass WP:RS?Sethie 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:RS reads "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." I think that plenty of information can be verified about the game and it's popularity simply by looking at a large number of individually somewhat suspect sources, many of which have been cited above. (See for example the rules listed in [Mao (game)].) If we can verify facts about the game, from this reading it seems that the existence of any reliable sources at all is not necessary. 71.225.71.44 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Really Really Weak Delete Per Nate I'd like to keep it, but it'll take a cleanup. Just H 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I already voted. Just H 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i'll put a graph for the votes on the talk page. Just H 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh. Also the first rule of common sense applies: If something is contemporary, domestic and supposedly popular, it shouldn't be a problem to find sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sodium-free delete, no prejudice against re-creation. The concerns raised about the article seem legitimate, and the absence of other sources over time is increasingly telling. -- Visviva 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline Keep. I know this game exists because I have heard my son and his friends play it for several years (and they clearly did not invent it or they would have claimed credit). From the past deletion discussions and the widespread locales where Wikipedians have stated that it has been played, in my view its lack of coverage in the press is not an indication that its existence is in question, but rather a indication of how uninteresting The Game is to those who don't "play." I think it is stupid but I also think it is widespread and is barely encyclopedic enough to keep. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The AFD listing says that "The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all." It doesn't. There's no reason there can't be a decent news report or similar about the game, it's just that we haven't found a good one in English yet. The article even has a reference, it's just that it's in Dutch, and the website's registration system is currently broken so we can't read the article. It is verifiable, it's just not adequately verified yet. The listing then says "As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth." That's not true either. Anyone can and does add their own nonsense, as with any article: this is a wiki. Like any other article good changes are kept and unverifiable POV nonsense is argued about and removed. Clearly we need to improve the references for this article, but it's just as clear we shouldn't delete it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside: I had no idea how popular The Game was on Wikipedia; see Category:Wikipedians who play The Game and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_the_game (which was a template that got moved to User:Scepia/The Game loser --Bkkbrad 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some perspective, that amounts to about 50 or 100 users out of 3 million-plus. BigNate37_(T) 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User:Rdore appears to be attempting votestacking, notifying only "keep" voters from the last AfD of the current discussion. [5] WarpstarRider 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is notable, it exists, and we can't prove it. It would be nice if there were more sources to explain it, but as it is there is only the one source and so there is no way that the article can be guaranteed accurate. There are solid reasons why WP:V is policy.--ais523 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I understand that memes are not individually notable and/or verifiable, but they are an observable sociological phenomenom. Perhaps a re-categorization as an example of memetics would be a good compromise? This article has been helpful to me in explaining The Game to people, and I've been playing since (roughly) 2001. I would also agree, though, that it needs some work in bringing it up to an encyclopedic standard. Cheers, Oons 216.91.240.14 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Really couldn't give a crap any more Yeah, everyone involved in this discussion (even the most ardent defenders, if they're honest) knows that it fails WP:V and it really should be a delete and salt until such time as the community comes to a new consensus that it does (i.e. more sources), but the reality is that sheer weight of numbers means that it's going to be closed as no consensus ergo de facto keep. C'est la vie. The article has been maintained in an almost unchanged condition since the closure of the last AFD (save for the usual stripping out of vandalism, and debates about whether to include User:Kernow's website in the list of links), which means that no interesting worthwhile sources have been found during the previous umpteen nominations or the however many months since. Either people were so ecstatic about it being kept that they've been partying ever since and were too busy looking for the one or two proper sources that could so easily settle this once and for all, or those sources simply aren't anywhere to be found, or (most likely) having had the article declared kept thanks to one pansy-arse source, they decided that their work here was done and crawled back to their rocks. Kinitawowi 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mini-essay posted here, moved to talk page by someone who deemed it irrelevant. It's under "another opinion". In a nutshell, there are more fundamental issues of policy interpretation at hand here than mere citation could resolve, and until they are decided one way or the other, I fear this dispute will be primarily swayed by merits of numbers and loudness. --AceMyth 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cook, and pass the salt and pepper. That is to say, delete, salt and recreate when somebody finds good sources. 'Til then. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting though, so I copy-pasted it to my userspace. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, has anything related to this been BJAODN'd? 58.178.78.40 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (I am not a Meatpuppet. I am abstaining, so I can't possibly have any effect.)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Although this has not yet reached the main-stream media, this is probably a pop culture phenomenon. Go to any school in America and say "I just lost the game" and view the results. -AtionSong 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Harvard referencing does not allow for crediting a citation to "any school in America." The definition of reliable sources is a little more narrow than that, and if you could point to a published source it would be much better than making generalised statements of cultural familiarity. The fact that I've never heard of it outside of Wikipedia is just as irrelevant as the fact that you have. BigNate37_(T) 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break for ease of editing (2)[edit]

• Strong Keep. Not liking something is not a reason for deletion. The article is notable, and verifiable, albeit currently by a single source. There is scope in this encyclopaedia for the frivolous as well as the mundane. Fiddle Faddle 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but the people all my shool (even though they're morons) have better things to do than play this game that no one I've asked has heard of(and i've asked quiet a few people). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N clearly states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." An article with only one source is neither notable nor verifiable. --Richmeister_talk 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Don't Destroy, while absolutely not a policy, has a great deal of sense for cases like this. Fiddle Faddle 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As of 30 December, Wikipedia:Don't Destroy is undergoing an MfD —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please stop talking about it, wouldn't you like to win for a little while?? --207.155.200.222 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:N has changed significantly since the last AfD. It now requires multiple published sources which this article does not have. Editors that want this article kept should really be discussing WP:N and whether a topic with only one published source can still be notable. Someone should find out the reason it was changed to require multiple sources in the first place. Kernow 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have commented below, WP:N is a guideline, not policy. A little "common sense" tells us that this article is an example of "the occasional exception" to WP:N guidelines on multiple sources. Kernow 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From WP:N: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Kernow 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Regardless of the number of available published sources, this is a real game with widespread popularity, and is obviously notable. Alereon 07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly for pragmatic reasons. At this point, it should be obvious that Wikipedia policy doesn't make this a slam dunk delete or a slam dunk keep. (Anyone who included "speedy" in their vote needs to put their view of WP policy in perspective, I'd say.) This AfD is nothing but the old deletionist vs. inclusionist debate rehashed for a thousandth time. If the policies and guidelines about inclusion are clearer someday and happen to swing it toward "delete", bring it up again. But right now, the choices are a sketchy delete and a sketchy keep, and sketchy deletes create many more hard feelings. rspeer / ???ds? 07:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is any keep vote which could convince me, this is it. BigNate37_(T) 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has one reliable source right now, and needs at least one more to pass WP:RS. But WP:RS is a guideline, not policy, so occasional exceptions are allowed. One is enough to satisfy WP:V, which is policy. I think in this case we can allow the article to stay. It would certainly be nice to have more sources since the article can't expand beyond what is currently there, but I don't think it should be deleted until more are found, since the source provided seems reliable. VegaDark 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really bothers me that people try to observe guidelines only when it is convenient to do so—guidelines are not sacrosanct, but shouldn't be discarded without very good reason. One source in a foreign language which requires registration (which someone above suggested was not working at the moment) should hardly be the exception to the guideline's two reliable sources. Ideally someone who wants to keep this article can just find a published, accessable source, and make this all moot. BigNate37_(T) 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only because the whole point of this game is to forget about it. therefore by deleting this article, we wikipedians are all winning. i am sure that the continued existence of this game in increasing numbers of social circles will cause this article to be brought back again and again. the repeated deletion only serves to exemplify the purpose of the game, so delete away, winners of the game! --Someones life 11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I guess I base it on the fact that if this were a band and all the bands fans were clamouring keep, and had some foreign language reference I couldn't access I'd say the same. Steve block Talk 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. It requires stretching multiple policies/guidelines to justify keeping this article. At some point, we reach the elastic limit. Foreign-language sources without reliable translation are a stretch to WP:V. So is an article that depends on subscription-only sources. A single source cannot satisfy WP:N, so we need to stretch that guideline. Keeping an article on a topic that derives much of its notability from its presence in Wikipedia is a stretch to WP:COI. I just don't stretch that far. If we aren't going to salt, we may as well not bother deleting. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no doubt that the game is real and that some people have heard of it. I also have no doubt that I'm real and some people have heard of me, but I don't get an article. We all know why. Mikeliveshere 19:45, 30 December 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.