Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (fifth nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kickboy (talk | contribs) at 06:14, 5 August 2006 (→[[The Game (game)]]: +Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Game (game)

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, April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus).

Frankly, it is time this went. I have waited a reasonable amount of time - over 3 months - before renominating this article to see if any multiple reliable sources would be forthcoming - they have note been. The article is not suitable for any reliable encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia should strive to be. As Wikipedia seems to finally have turned the corner on what we allow, and actually are applying policy and guideline (WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT) to internet meme garbage fanboy articles (see here or here, it may finally be time for this to go.

The article has 1 (one) even remotely verifiable source, which is a small article in a single edition of a fairly low circulation (53,860 or 1 in 150 Belgians) Flemish language newspaper that requires a subscription to read. This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified. The article even says this, itself - Despite its reported prevalence this is the only mainstream report of The Game. All the other 'sources' provided are either bloglinks, or a website made up purely to ensure this cack was no consensus'd in a prior AFD. And even if it were sufficiently verifiable, I would suggest that this is not notable. Strong delete. Proto::type 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified" Can you point me to where it says in WP:RS that articles require "multiple reliable mainstream print journals" for verification? Kernow 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an accurate objection, as I've explained below. Also, it's better to insert comments in chronological order on an AfD rather than here at the top, to avoid confusion. Ziggurat 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Feb 06 deletion was not of this article, it was of another article about the same game. It was deleted because of the existence of this article. Kernow 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note that I have semi-protected this AFD proactively, as previous AFD discussions have been rife with vandalism and first-time voters on both sides of the debate. If another admin disagrees with this, please revert the protection. Proto::type 10:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Nothing has changed, and it's been mentioned in a third party publication. AfD shouldn't be used over and over to get the desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been tagged requesting sufficient reliable sources and references for more than three months since the last AFD. This is not using AFD over and over. And note that the 'desired result' - deletion - has already been consented on twice. The same argument could have been made at the last AFD, when the prior two results had been 'delete'. The addition of one link to one low-circulation non-English account-restricted newspaper article is not enugh to pass WP:RS. Proto::type 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has a source. The fact that this is the fifth nomination shows that, yes, it has been AfD'd over and over, and this is a borderline speedy keep because of it. Just because it was AfD'd 3 times and people finally got the desired result doesn't make it correct now. My position stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It has one non-trivial mention - the same can be said for many passing things. Heck, I have friends who can claim the same if not greater coverage, and they don't have or merit articles either. GassyGuy 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep again. The Game is well known across many countries, and hundreds of reputable wikipedians attest to its existence. A second good source has yet to be forthcoming, still, which does detract from the article, but as and when we can fix that we will - in the meantime, the article should stay, awaiting completion, rather than being deleted. That was the consensus from previous AFDs, and nothing has changed. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the consensus(es) from previous AFDs were keep, keep, delete, delete, no consensus. Please ensure you have your facts correct. On the last AFD, many keep 'voters' (in speechies as AFD not a vote) said it was awaiting sources organically and other such platitudes; in three months exactly this much has been provided: nothing. A re-AFDing after three months when no such sources have been provided is not unreasonable. Proto::type 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be pointed out that the circulation of a newspaper doesn't affect its validity as a source. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "the consensus(es) from previous AFDs were keep, keep, delete, delete, no consensus" - The first delete was for an article with a different name that referred to the same game, so that has nothing to do with whther this article should be deleted. Kernow 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources, and it is notable. A quick google test (with appropriate extra words) reveals a number of sites devoted to The Game. Since none of these sites created The Game, there is little possibility of vanity, and thus The Game is notable. Dark Shikari 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that most of the sites 'devoted to the game' were created purely to exist as sources for the Wikipedia article to exist (read the last AFD - savethegame is one of these. Proto::type 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see that one on Google--its probably way off the first page of results by now. One of the sites, for example, is a site offering game-related merchandise and the like, along with an FAQ as to what the game is and various other resources. While obviously it isn't a news source, it attests to the notability of The Game because it isn't related to Wikipedia nor did it create the game in the first place. Dark Shikari 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just doesn't appear to be enough verifiable information in non-trivial sources yet. Perhaps if it is documented more widely the article can be recreated. —ptk★fgs 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not notable/verifiable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, everyone needs to read the past discussions before voting on this. This really shouldn't have been nominated again. --Liface 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, include Proto, Dark Shikari, and above. It's notable, but it's appreciated to have improvements in the article. --Bigtop 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD abuse per above comments to get desired results. If someone doesn't like the fact that the WP system doesn't comport to their view of what the encyclopedia should include, change the system, don't game it (no pun intended). If something lived through so many AfDs, it's notable enough to at the least warrant a stub. I often harp on this but again the boat is missed: personal tastes really matter for nothing. It's all about what merits inclusion in the WP site, and this does. This also isn't Britannica, and we have no physical limitations. Keep this and add a note ala the GNAA to discourage frivilous deletion attempts. rootology 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V Whispering 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per WP:V. We've waiting long enough for a second WP:RS, and it hasn't appeared. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V and WP:RS per Arthur Rubin. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per nom and point out, as last time, that the article used as the key reliable source would have gotten me bawled out by my journalism instructor for being pointless as anything but an opinion piece. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:V : "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." Rdore 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:V: "Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article." Bwithh 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is also required is notability. This was established in previous AFDs. If you read the last AFD, notability had already been established and the discussion regarded verifiabilty. Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've looked through the previous AFDs before. I don't see that notablity has been established. The notability claims seem to be mainly based on the disputed Morgen article and various keep voters saying "I've heard of it" or "its mentioned on blogs". Should I point out that (as I'm constantly being reminded) notability is neither a guideline nor a policy? Nah. (by the way, I'm being ironic) Bwithh 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice if more sources come about. My m:eventualism has run out. Kotepho 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough. --Elonka 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a printed source, it is notable. I think it is just being nominated because a lot of the editors think the game is goofy, and therefore hold it to an unusually high standard. Rdore 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Many notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial sources, and when it's something this unencyclopaedic with which we're beginning, I think that's a fair standard. GassyGuy 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my enitre point. Some wikipedia editors decide this game looks silly to them. Then, short of overwhelming evidence that it is a huge cultural phenomena, they are going to try to get it removed. Just rooting around on the internet I've seen a bunch of disconnected places where it shows up. Take a look at all the people who try to edit different variations and approaches they've seen into the article. This seems to me a sign that it is not an isolated thing for one or two groups of people. There are a slew of articles with much less verifiability and much less interest that nobody has attacked one tenth so vehemently.Rdore 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Many notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial sources" Could you tell me where I can find these guidelines? Kernow 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V is explicitly grounded in WP:RS. This article fails WP:RS, and so fails WP:V. Also note this statement in WP:V:"Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article." Bwithh 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). I'm not going to repeat all my arguments again. WarpstarRider 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has been around for months and reliable sources haven't been found, surely not for lack of trying. One newspaper mention isn't enough, newspapers occasionally mention utterly insignificant things in passing. Multiple independent sources are still required, no? Weregerbil 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination Stormscape 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: okay, so in the four months since I last argued for its deletion, the article itself has improved. Unfortunately the verifiability has not. However many hundreds of blog hits there are, blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. We have: one article in a newspaper. (An article which, at the time, people said looked very similar to the Wikipedia article.) One article in three months of people looking for more information? WP:V, WP:RS. Zap, pow, blam, delete. Telsa (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not terribly familiar with Wiki policy, but I am a user who saw a reference to The Game elsewhere on the internet, without explanation. Wanting to know what it was, I turned to Wikipedia and within 15 seconds was enlightened. Seemes to me that Wikipedia fulfilled my need precisely in this instance. --Funpaul 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Official policy excludes many kinds of information which would are obviously useful to many people such as recipes, how-tos and dictionary definitions, nevermind obscure internet memes like The Game. This is because Wikipedia is primarily intended to be an encyclopedia. It is crucial for the authority of encyclopedias that they uphold official standards of verification and reliable sourcing (and some would argue also for encyclopedic notability, but this is very controversial and not official policy, although it is the basis of a number of official guidelines). Inadequately verified, obscure memes such as the Game are better suited to user-written websites like urbandictionary.com which have fewer and lower standards Bwithh 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The existence of only one obscure print reference confirms its non-notability. Wikipedia is not an appropriate vector for a meme of this sort. Rohirok 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an old meme, references to which are rare (partly by its nature) but not unheard of. Deleting the page serves only to subtly undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia as a repository of information; keeping the page causes no harm, other than continuing these inane discussions. Would a list of blogs mentioning The Game count as references? because fetishizing print references over internet references really serves no end at all; I'm certain there are many memes (correctly) discussed on Wikipedia which have never been covered in print. --Rjmccall 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never heard of this, I do not know it to be notable, a Google check only shows one or two trivial results. Fails the Pokemon test. I have no idea why this has come back 5 times. ><Richard0612 UW 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did you search for on Google? Kernow 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the wiki-bet soup policies the nominator brought up, particularly WP:V and WP:NOT. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Keep as per Visviva and Funpaul. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete Lacks multiple reliable sources for verification - even after very extended amount of time (8 months since first afd discussion) for new sources to arise and despite special initiative by Game fans to find sources[1] as well as despite their special deliberate initiative to plant mentions in the media. On this page on losethegame.com, planting mentions in the media is recommended as a game strategy. Sole "reliable source" media reference is, in fact, unreliable. The article is trivial in content - it is not a news report but a column (so not subject to news fact-checking). Furthermore, the writer does not substantiate his claims about the popularity of the game, and people should consider that the writer himself may be playing the game (since spreading word of the game is supposed to be "winning" behaviour). (I've lost the link that had the translation of the original article. I'll try and find it again) The writer is also wrong when he claims that readers who read his article have played the game and lost (though this is an indication that he himself is playing the game). One only loses by wanting to play the game (One can think about the game and not "lose" anything if one doesnt' want to play). This is a stupid game - the only way to win is, in fact, not to play. In any case, this article fails non-negotiable policy WP:V by failing WP:RS and is a good example of WP:NFT. Bwithh 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the translation of the Morgen article: http://www.losethegame.com/demorgen.htm . Notice that even this writer calls the game only "a modest hype" and fails to provide evidence that game has notable following. Also, as I mentioned his claim that "if you read this article, you just lost the game" is wrong, but also suggests that he is playing the game (using recommended strategy of planting mention in media to claim that readers are automatically losers) Bwithh 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "despite their special deliberate initiative to plant mentions in the media" I added that information less than 24 hours ago. See below for my explanation as to why participation in a game does not require consent. "this article fails non-negotiable policy" Could you please quote this policy. Kernow 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, more of an internet meme/thought experiment than an actual game (and should be recategorized as such if kept), but definitely not verifiable. Recury 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I've actually come across a variant of this elsewhere (it had a rule that, if you came across a mention of it somewhere, you had a grace period to forget about it IIRC), but there's an apparent lack of reliable sources (though with a name like that, finding them wouldn't be easy anyway). - makomk 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced and notable. The majority of Delete voters seem to think that Wikipedia requires mulitple sources for verification. The closest thing I could find to this is "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source" (WP:RS), this is a long way from requiring multiple sources. Another mistake many Delete voters are making is the assumption that the 21st Feb deletion of the Lost (game) article is somehow relevant to whether or not this article should exist. That article was deleted because an article about The Game already existed here. Kernow 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The game is about not thinking about the game so it's inherently unverifiable. So it won't pass and never will pass WP:V --Whispering 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect Whispering, the game is verifiable, it just means attempts to verify will be associated with someone loosing.
*Comment I think what Whispering means is the experience or social act of playing the game is unverifiable if we accept the rules of the game, since playing the game involves not thinking about it. And as I said before, you only lose the game if you want to play. So verification does not in itself lead to losing, despite what the De Morgen column claims. Bwithh 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* This has also been discussed before. You do not need to give consent to be a participant in a game. For example, I invent a new game called "Kernow's Game" and the rule is that the next person to edit this page will lose. By definition the next person to edit this page will lose Kernow's Game regardless of whether they want to play or were even aware that they were playing. Kernow 22:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrational. That would be a game in you play only in your own perspective which the other person has no knowledge of. Bwithh 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reply, but what I am saying is not irrational. The fact that I'm the only one aware of Kernow's game doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A game is an abstract concept with no physical existence. Therefore one only needs to conceive it for it to exist. Regardless of whether you want to play a different version where you don't lose, you have still lost my version of Kernow's game, and hence you have still lost a game without knowing you were playing it. For a less abstract example, what about the Roman gladiators? That was a type of sport/game and I'm fairly sure most of the participants did not want to play. Kernow 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:RS as it only has a single trivial article as a source - the article does not substantiate its claims as fact and is an opinion/though of the day/humour column piece rather than a news story; this makes it unlikely to be subject to the stringent factchecking which WP:V and WP:RS assume (also see my argument above). Also, satisfying WP:V is an insufficient condition by itself for an article to remain. Even if we accept the single De Morgen article as reliable verification of the game, the article fails to establish that the game has a substantial following or that this game is newsworthy or encyclopedia-worthy Bwithh 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote WP:RS where it says that verification requires more than one source. "the article...is an opinion/though of the day/humour column piece rather than a news story" What are you basing this on? Notability was established in previous AFDs, a google search for "I just lost The Game"[2] for example. Personally, I was convinced of its notability when I met completely random people who also played The Game. I have heard other "active players" say the same. Kernow 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, you asserting the most minimal level of meeting WP:RS - which even then, it is insufficient for article retention. Note that I emphasized the word trivial and that WP:RS and WP:V strongly advise multiple sources. And that the facts claimed in that single article of debatable significance fails the WP:RS's definition of a fact. The article clearly is not a piece of news reporting by journalistic standard as others have noted too. Almost all the google hits you cite are blog and forum entries. Then you resort to original research claims. Bwithh 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that there is no part of WP:RS that requires more than one source? The google hits I cite are an example of one of the things proving notability, not verifiability. As for my original research claims, I am just trying to give people my perspective. Obviously I have no way of proving that and it can't be used when deciding whether to keep the article or not. It's just annoying when people who haven't heard of something think that that means it doesn't exist, especially when you have come across it independently in a number of different countries. Kernow 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete I was previously a major proponent of keeping this article. However, at this point, after three months I have concluded that 1) it is not notable (if it we're the many people trying to find sources would have found more than 1 by now) 2) The De Morgen article only barely meets WP:RS. JoshuaZ 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can really estimate notability based on the number of people searching for sources for Wikipedia. Kernow 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A failure of anyone to find any but one minor source that discusses it is relevant for notability. I was one of the poeple who wasted time trying to find more sources. I was unsuccesful. JoshuaZ 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that in the last AFD you acknowledged that The Game was notable, and that the issue was with verifiablity? Is there any guidelines for how many people need to be aware of something for it to be classed as notable? As a result of the DeMorgan article alone there must be hundreds of thousands of players by now and that was only published a few months ago. Personally, I have been playing since 2002 so I think there must be many more players than this. Kernow 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people are referring to the existence of savethegame.org as if this makes the lack of sources more relevant. People that follow this (flawed) logic should realise that most people gave up looking for sources when the decision was made to keep the article. Kernow 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[WP:V] is policy. Consensus can not trump policy (if 1 in 4 AFDs keeping even is a consensus to keep). Absence of multiple reliable sources after an extended opportunity to generate them and multiple discussions is more than adequate evidence that such sources do not exist at the present time. Accordingly, the article should be deleted, and deletion review should not send it back again absent evidence of multiple reliable sources. Once we have multiple reliable sources, we can move on to the not yet adequately answered questions as to whether this is notable/encyclopedic. It sure looks like a prime case for elimination under WP:NFT. GRBerry 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policiy requiring multiple sources is yet to be quoted. Kernow 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already Voted It seems to me people are mixing together the two separate objections:
    • Verifiability - The article contains only a small ammount of info: what the game is, where it is played, etc. The newspaper article, even if it is not pulitzer winning journalism substantiates these claims. Could anyone credibly claim between that article and a glut of internet sources that any of the information is wrong? Do you think the game does not exist or has other rules? The rules, variants, etc. of Mao (game) are much more poorly sourced than this and no one is complaining about it's verifiability. What is it you feel isn't verified exactly?
    • Notability - Although the subject has to be notable, there is no rule saying that notability needs to be established through reliable sources. For example, there are lots of websites which have been affirmed in AfD as notable internet memes, despite having no printed sources about them at all (for example Zombo.com). My point is that there is no universal requirement that Notability be established with print sources.

Rdore 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the article, the criticism is not that it is poor writing, it is that is not news journalism. Also the article lacks reliable substantiation that this game has a notable following. Bwithh 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about this. If this is the case then would the evidence I collected for the Game Map be useful in determining notability. I have confirmed (with IP addresses) the locations of players in UK, USA, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine, Denmark, Russia, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Kernow 12:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "multiple" are we meant to be understanding? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policiy does not require multiple sources. Kernow 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far there seem to be three reasons given for deletion:
  1. The De Morgen article does not count as a reliable source. The De Morgen is a major Belgian newspaper and no one has quoted any policy which would invalidate this source.
  2. Verification requires multiple reliable sources. Despite my multiple comments asking for someone to quote the policy that says this, no one has.
  3. The Game isn't notable. Notability of The Game was established in the last AFD. Notability does not need to be proven by reliable sources, it is up to people to use their common sense. Try searching Google for "I just lost The Game" or "I lost The Game" and the majority of hits are in reference to this game. There is evidence that The Game exists in many countries. I would be willing to let someone check the IP addresses on the losethegame.com forum to confirm this. The stat counter on losethegame.com clearly shows that around 500 new IPs view the main page every day.
In conclusion, I cannot find a single delete vote on this page that is supported by Wikipedia policy. Kernow 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's always WP:WEB, and WP:MEME too, if you like. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEME is a proposal that's thisclose to having a rejected tag on it. Meanwhile, neither WP:MEME or WP:WEB would really apply, as it's not about a website or internet meme. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although The Game may have become an "internet meme" it certainly doesn't solely exist as one, and was not created as one. I was told about The Game verbally and I'm a sure a significant number of others were to. Kernow 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "multiple reliable sources [are needed]": this is no policy, but just a healthy attitude, as newspapers are know to make mistakes, espesially in these "non-so-serious" parts of in which the cited article was published. I don't say that De Morgen article was incorrect, it just has to be ruled out that it wasn't. -- Koffieyahoo 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article about the game is written by people who play it. In the zehd variation of the game I play, you can freely speak or write about the game for half an hour after losing, without losing again. The articles about Impossible Creatures, and Starcraft and Halo 2, and Age of Mythology are mostly written by people who play those games. Should we delete those articles? --Chamale 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those software games are major titles published by major video games companies and are verifiable through official websites and multiple game reviews by commercial publications. Not really comparable to the subject at hand Bwithh 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cites a reliable source. Mo-Al 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was the result of the previous prolonged wrangle that the existence and notability of the Game are unquestionable. Additionally, sourcing something called "The Game" that has the goal of not thinking about it is rather harder than usual. Kernow has repeatedly asked anyone to quote the policy - used as a basis in several 'delete' votes - that multiple RSs are required, and the best answer so far has been that it's a "healthy attitude". --Kizor 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at WP:V, you'll note that in almost every instance 'reliable sources' is plural, and by implication most people interpret this as articles requiring more than a single source for an article to be retained. It's pretty hard to achieve a neutral point of view with only one source, too. In any case, it's clear that people dispute whether the single source provided is sufficient, so a good consensus would be the appropriate course of action. Seeing as we have apparently yet to reach a consensus on this, more discussion is the key, not less. Ziggurat 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* "It's pretty hard to achieve a neutral point of view with only one source, too."
If you are claiming the article is not neutral, you should put an NPOV tag on it, not delete it.
* "In any case, it's clear that people dispute whether the single source provided is sufficient."\
The question which this begs, is sufficient for what? For reliability, for notability, or for neutrality? There's no reason to believe satisfying (or not) any particular one of these will cause the other to be or not be satisfied.
* "Seeing as we have apparently yet to reach a consensus on this, more discussion is the key, not less."
I agree completely and welcome more discussion. Rdore 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm saying is that one of the reasons we require more than one source is to ensure that NPOV is possible - if it's not possible (here I don't believe it is) then a tag is inappropriate. I personally don't like the concept of notability, so it's really reliability and neturality that are important here. While I also personally feel that there should be a baseline standard for how many reliable sources there are for an article to be included, that's a policy debate for another time.Ziggurat 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although "reliable sources" is used in the plural, the only reference I can find which actually discusses whether they are required is "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source". As for NPOV, can you point to which parts of the article might be considered biased? It is really just stating the rules of The Game and where it is played, there isn't really anything in the article which could be opinion or a biased point of view as far as I can see. I agree that the existence of multiple sources would be more important if the article's neutrality was being disputed, but as far as I am aware it isn't. Kernow 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a bilingual Dutch Wikipedian who can clarify whether it's a column or an article. Ziggurat 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De Morgen is a quality newspaper (although probably not the newspaper of record, that would be De Standaard). So far as I can tell, and I've read it on occasions, it is a reliable source, insofar as newspapers can be. The jpg, which shows neither date nor page number, gives no obvious sign of where it came from in the paper. As the edge of the article is cut off we don't know who wrote it, but it's not an opinion piece per se. One WP:RS so far as I can see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There just isn't a justifiable reason to delete a perfectly good article in this instance. Although the article does need more detail and sources, the lack of these does not justify deletion. Also the fact that this article has failed deletion 4 times leads me to believe it is popular enough to be useful. Wikipedia has a education obligation, and just because some people find The Game erroneous does not warrant it's deletion from Wikipedia. - Kickboy 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_(game)_(fifth_nomination)&oldid=67780787"