The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed restoration of the article below. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep deleted. There are some area that we can afford to be slack on. Verification is not one of them. I'd urge everyone who wants an article kept based upon a single (unsourced) newspaper article to carefully review the guidelines on verification, bias, and reliability of sources. - brennemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L} 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

This article was deleted as unverifiable, after two older AfDs decided to keep it. But Mao (game) is also unverifiable and it is clearly encyclopedic. I put up Encyclopædia Dramatica as unverifiable but it was pointed out that things can be notable even if we don't have a verifiable source. So, I submit to you that this game is as notable as Mao. Ashibaka tock 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate. Proof of the existence of The Game is undeniable. Heck, in my local library, in the back corner (where no one ever goes, really) is a poster. On this poster are the words "You Just Lost The Game". Things available at local libraries count as reliable. Now, the old content may or may not have been folowing policy. The artical SHOULD exist, though. --Kinkoblast 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof of the existence of The Game is undeniable. Uh, no. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, yes it is. There are hundreds of sources on the internet - so what if they're blogs? That means that all the people who have written about it are playing the game. What better source than a huge list of people who are actively playing the game? And surely, if there are people playing it, as I do, that effectively means the game exists. And when it's so widespread that forums such as forums.somethingawful.com The Something Awful Forums have a special rule in which people who post "the game" topics are banned, that makes it an incredibly noteable meme? You don't get banned on SA for nonnoteable memes. This was obviously a huge problem on SA for it to gain that status, which means it definitely exists. --Casiotone 14:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can get banned from SA for just about anything. I fail to see how that can be used to support this article. kotepho 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They aren't quite as strict as you think.. memes have to be incredibly overused to become bannable offenses on SA, so it means that a lot of threads and posts were being made about The Game. It's a stretch to consider this as support, maybe, but it does show how widespread and popular this game is. --Casiotone^talk 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Let it die. Childish, unverifiable nonsense is still childish, unverifiable nonsense even if other crap gets kept. If you have an issue with the other stuff being here, then go after that instead. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that whether or not we think a subject is childish or nonsensical doesn't matter. --Kizor 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore: there is a precedent for adjusting Wikipolicy or making a new one, because this article is ridiculously notable despite having few or no sources, and this is due to its inherent memetic nature (thus, policy for memes). New policies aside, however, "childish nonsense" is quite wrong. There is no policy against articles describing childish things, and, furthermore, this "nonsense" (which I agree, it is), is a massive, widespread, global, and real phenomenon. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would like to know why the AfD was closed as a delete. I haven't counted but it seemed to me a majority of votes were keep. David | Talk 13:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. You know what Mao has that The Game doesn't? www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A638426 Sources. --phh 13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A807068, www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A3532402 Will you reverse your vote now? Ashibaka tock
  • H2G2 is a source? Isn't that like quoting Wikipedia or Everything2 as a source? Powers 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough… but that's a reason to delete Mao, not a reason to restore The Game. --phh 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do you have links to the three AfD discussions? I can only find the first, which was less than five months ago. It appears that the article was repeatedly nominated for deletion with the hope that one of those times the result would be 'delete'. If it was indeed kept twice, I'd be extremely interested to see what changed to cause the deletion on the third try, after such a short period of time. Powers 13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment was the primary reason:

    Delete: I just spent a couple of hours scouring LexisNexus, ProQuest, InfoWeb, and Google for anything related to the game. Only Google returns results and they are all blogs or forums. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is just a guideline): "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. [...] Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." From WP:Verifiability (which is a policy): "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. [...] For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. [...] And just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Wikipedia." While this article represents a unique case, continuing to allow it without any hope for sources is in direct violation of both guideline and official policy. I still stand by what I wrote above—the game does exist and is played—but that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Until it becomes popular enough to have more than a handful of hits on Google, it should remain the province of college dorms, high school homerooms, and blogs. —Seqsea (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_%28game%29_%282_nomination%29&diff=44584335&oldid=44583039[reply]

    User:Seqsea can never get that time back. Please don't let it have been in vain. Endorse Delete so we can end this foolishness. --phh 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • A source was found (prior to this search) in MacWorld & MacAddict publications, but because it refered to the Wikipedia article its reliability has been disputed. Kernow 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) It was an advert and therefore not reliable b) it implied it got its information from Wikipedia in the first place and was therefore even less reliable c) it didn't actually say anything about what the Game was anyway. WP:V isn't a game called "Find x number of mentions of something on Google and you get to write an article in Wikipedia about the game you played when you were at school", it's about letting readers trace information back to where it comes from. That supposed source did not make that possible, to say the least. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        a) From Primary sources: "advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources", I assume this also applies to more recent advertisements.

        b) As far as I am aware, there are no Wikipedia policies that deal with this situation, where the only source refers to Wikipedia.

        c) The link to the specific Wikipedia article infers that it refered to The Game as described there.

        As I understand it, this is a unique situation that should not be dismissed without considerable thought. Kernow 11:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Per similar precedents set by SapiosexualEncyclopædia Dramatica which have both had AfDs and the similar precedent of everyone agreeing that Mao should stay in. Note that Sapiosexual was actually no consensus but the AfD seemed to be leaning closer to keep than to delete. JoshuaZ 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And what of WP:V? Is that no longer firm policy? Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: After LtPowers' comment, I tallied up the keep and delete votes, excluding sockpuppets and anons, and the actual tally was:
  28 Keep - 16 Delete
  If you don't believe me, tally it yourself. Therefore this DRV now carries the additional point that the article was deleted out of process for no damn reason. Ashibaka tock 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Die, stay dead and dance on its grave. The three AfD discussions are linked on Talk: The Game (game). While the first couple seem to have been assessed as a trivial vote (the way User:Dbiv seems to think it should be), the third discussion analysed the topic under the strict interpretation of WP:V and WP:NOR, and was found wanting. (For the record, Mao looks just as crap.) AfD is NOT a voting procedure, it is an attempt to form consensus. Stating the number of votes is completely irrelevant. Kinitawowi 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying, in the end the only person who matters in a deletion debate is the administrator who closes it? Sweet, I'll be using that rationale to delete Encyclopædia Dramatica then. Ashibaka tock 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never thought I'd say this, Ashibaka, but grow up. AfD is not a vote. You know that, or should know that — you passed RfA, after all, and quite nicely, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, and what I learned at RfA is that process is important. You can't just ignore an AfD turnout which had twice as many keep votes as delete votes. Ashibaka tock 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course you can! If twenty people say "delete, nn", and two people say "it's notable and verifiable, see this newspaper article, that government website, and the shrine built in the middle of Sydney to the existence of this phenomenon", then you aren't going to delete ... or, if you are, you shouldn't be closing AfDs. The reverse applies as well. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're correct. Deletion debates should err in favor of keeping the article. Ashibaka tock 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, deletion debates should err in favour of seeing if any policies are violated. Which in this case they clearly are: it was argued convincingly that this fails WP:V and hence also WP:NOR. We should not keep unverifiable content however many poeple think it's "notable", any more than we should keep copyvios or anything else that violates fundamental policy. Erring in favour of keep is for things which are verifiable, but arguably not notable or important. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't actually made any suggestions at all here. I have simply asked why an AfD was closed in a way which appears on the surface to be non-standard. It is questionable whether the last AfD did establish a consensus for deletion. David | Talk 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nothing suggests that process wasn't followed, from what I can see. Furthermore, various users have been spamming talk pages of everyone who participated in the AFD with links to some website about saving the Game's Wikipedia article. Stifle 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. The Game is definitely notable, in my eyes. Besides, I'm not a big fan of relisting every time something gets a Keep vote. Andy Saunders 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted. I think we can satisfactorily prove that Mao Zhedong existed from multiple non-trivial secondary sources,and even if we couldn't the existence of one unverifiable article doesn't justify the inclusion of another. Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, this is Mao (game) that is we are discussing, not Mao Zedong. JoshuaZ 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling if I had sent Encyclopædia Dramatica to Deletion Review rather than AfD it would have been deleted. Ashibaka tock 14:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Is it unverifiable from reliable sources? If so, it should indeed be removed. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. If it's so damn notable someone other than bloggers should have written about it. The notion that something can have no sources by virtue of its memetic nature, rather than the fact only people on the Internet care about it, is provably false. I think somewhere on Wikipedia we give freak dancing as an example that just because something is popular among children it doesn't have to be unsourced. And AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and if none of the numerous keep voters could come up with a source, all the more reason to endorse the closing admin's decision. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look. The entire point of The Game is for itself to be forgotten. It is inherently sourceless. Furthermore, it travels almost entirely by word of mouth: it is, very much, only secondarily on the internet.-- Alfakim --  talk  16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This is a conundrum. Clearly, there is much vehement rejection of this article's suitability for Wikipedia. I'm not clear what about this stirs such emotions, as it's a harmless, if silly, diversion, but the emotions are there. I urge everyone to remain civil. =) I'm torn on this one. The Game is clearly, to me, notable, as a widespread phenomenon -- but it also appears to be wholly unverifiable. Worse, its notability and verifiability are themselves almost impossible to verify, simply because of its name (most text searches are basically useless in attempting to find sources about "The Game" for what should be obvious reasons). In light of WP:V, I would probably vote Delete in an AfD. However, this is not an AfD. In light of WP:IAR, the inherent difficulties in finding verifiable sources MUST be taken into account in this unique situation, and I do not believe that was done in closing the third AfD; couple that with a plethora of otherwise valid Keep votes, indicating a definite lack of consensus, and I cannot endorse the closure of that AfD. Powers 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note also that one can in fact verify its notability by googling for the phrase "I just lost The Game." Almost all the hits returned refer to The Game. JoshuaZ 15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It's possible to verify notability that way, but not to verify unnotability. =) Or unverifiability for that matter. Powers 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse - The closing admin made a hard, and IMO correct, decision. This article clearly didn't conform to WP:V which states that it is "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." A lot of the keep votes were new or anon users, whereas a couple of long-standing editors changed to delete after inspecting the evidence. I searched for hours for good sources for this article and found none. I'll be more than happy to support it's re-creation when some are found. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore - with a new introductory paragraph that addresses the issue of its unverifiable nature, as I suggest on the talk page (Archive 3). As Alfakim said, "There is a precedent for adjusting Wikipolicy or making a new one, because this article is ridiculously notable despite having few or no sources, and this is due to its inherent memetic nature (thus, policy for memes). New policies aside, however, "childish nonsense" is quite wrong. There is no policy against articles describing childish things, and, furthermore, this "nonsense" (which I agree, it is), is a massive, widespread, global, and real phenomenon." I think this is the perfect place for a new precedent. If the outcome of this DRV is to leave The Game deleted and delete Mao too, I think we'll be shooting Wikipedia in its knees. Hawkian 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The closing admin is the same person putting it up for DRV, so let him change his mind. We have many articles on things which are quite notable but are not verifiable using old media. It seems people simply want to make an example out of this article by deleting it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Here are three sources I turned up via a quick search on "I just lost the game" (-wikipedia, to avoid sites that might refer back to the article), as JoshuaZ suggested. www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm ijustlostthegame.ytmnd.com/ www.losethegame.com/default.htm All three establish the basic rules, and have a variant about the "grace period". The latter site even has a little project to trace the origins of The Game. I'll grant, these are not reputable published works, but there are many, many more where that came from. That's the crux of the issue: WP:V and WP:NOR require reputable sources. However, let's think about the reputability of these sources: remember that Wikipedia:Reliable sources is only a guideline; in the end, as WP:NOR says, it's impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." So, let's consider them from first principles. I can't think of a way in which these sources could be biased, at least not when it comes to whether the rules of the game are correct: what reason would they have to misrepresent the rules? I think the existence of a site trying to track the origins of The Game is evidence of its existence and its notability. Also, I tried for a little and couldn't find any examples of memes being written about in reputable sources: people write about the general idea of memes and their spread, but examples are few and far between... so this is about as reputable as we can get for this entire broad topic. I doubt a tenth of the articles in Category:Internet memes could be sufficiently sourced if we don't allow for semi-reliable sources... and I really don't think we should delete all of those. Mangojuice 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, guess what? Not one of those is a reliable source. Especially YTMND, even though they appear at times to regard Wikipedia as their personal playground. And when I find out who created savethegame.org I will have their ass in front of ArbCom, because that is precisely the kind of thing that got Gastrich blocked - it's absolutely not acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created savethegame.org to collect references to the game until the verifiability requirement is satisfied. Bkkbrad 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems very different from what happened to Gastrich. The website doesn't advocate the construction of meatpuppets or anything of that sort. All it has is its own little wiki so people can work to finding reliable sources. Seems like a complete waste of time to me, but in no way problematic behavior. JoshuaZ 21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. You can't trump WP:V. And none of the sources at savethegame.org is anything other than a blog, Urbandictionary, or H2G2, despite the attempts at portraying them as something other than that. Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now. I am persuaded that most keep voters in the debate(s) don't have a great understanding of WP:RS. On the other, I am unhappy with the dismissive attitude taken by some advocates for deletion: this game is very close to becoming verifiable, and I expect a thorough search of major college newspapers will soon reveal WP:V-compliant articles. So the article will be resurrected soon enough. For now, though, I cannot justify maintaining the article against WP:V concerns. Xoloz 16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and improve. Surely the solution is to leave it, and make a plea for sources? The Game's very nature defies citations in formal sources (mostly), but that is no reason to remove a widespread, and interesting, game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmag9 (talk • contribs) 17:15, March 27, 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does not need to be restored for its supporters to locate and provide reliable sources. Instead the citations, once located, may serve as the basis of a future deletion review. --Allen3 ^talk 17:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Lack of verifiability clearly demonstrated. Closure was in compliance with appropriate Wikipedia policy (WP:V). --Allen3 ^talk 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and improve - there's enough debate in this very thread, including the sources shown so far, that the error should have been on the side of keeping. The closing admin opened the DRV, for that matter, showing doubt. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. As the axiom says, it's a discussion, not a vote, and the discussion supported the closing administrator's decision. It is also an axiom to err towards keeping the article, but in this case I don't feel any erring was involved. Lord Bob 18:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I don't care how many legions of "voters" show up - if they don't believe in WP:V, we should discount their votes. Verifiability is essential and I'm pleased that some editors still believe in it. No prejudice against recreation using reliable sources, of course. Friday (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted It's clearly been shown to be unverifiable, and no-one's produced any new sources to verify it from since then. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Game is clearly verifiable, it just doesn't have magazine articles and newspaper reports, or reputable sources. However, looking at the SaveTheGame.org "reliable sources" list, this looks pretty close to a report based on The Game: www.insertcredit.com/features/london2004/index.html insertcredit.com gaming con -- Alfakim --  talk  19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's pretty well what I meant, I should have been clearer. On a side note, I looked at that source, and it doesn't impress me: it's pretty well using the Game as a lede into an article about notable games, although the bit about learning about it in Borneo is pretty neat. Lord Bob 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now, as unverifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, unverifiable. At such time as someone publishes a real description of this meme in a reliable source, it can come back. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion if for nothing else then Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscrimnate collection of information. -M^ask 21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion It has no sources because it is in its nature to be unsourced? Circular reasoning does not help this argument, but sources would. The premise implies that everyone who knows about the game wants to play it, and no-one wants to write about it instead. Ziggurat 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion:

  No one denies the existence of the game, and it was not deleted as non-notable. It was deleted as unverified and almost assuredly unverifiable. Many of the people who voted in favor of deletion, and many of the people contributing to this discussion, did so with the qualification that if The Game ever became sourced, it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. The notability of our article has very little to do at all with the verifiability of its content. We are not in the business of providing primary sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that we should be a tertiary source. If we cannot verify what we have written, it needs to be removed from the article; if the entire article is unverified, the entire article needs to be removed—or sources found.

  While the stated purpose of The Game is to forget about it, not everyone who knows about it is actively trying to forget it. That we had the article to begin with, that it was in AFD three times, and that it is now in DRV shows that fairly well. It is demonstrably false that nobody has written about The Game, because we're doing it right now. There is nothing preventing a newspaper, magazine, or sociology professor from writing about The Game beyond the fact that nobody appears to want to. Note that I am not arguing that it is non-notable or non-existent. I am arguing that it is (1) not inherently sourceless and (2) not currently verifiable.

  LexisNexis (which I wish I'd spelled properly the first time, given the amount of times I've been quoted), has 213 college and university newspapers in its database. I made sure to spend a little extra time in that section, because I thought that college newspapers would be the best place to find a reference. The simple fact is that I could not find any references. I do not mean to say that no such references exist, only that I was unable to find them, and that I spent hours looking. Other contributors have done the same. Presumably, User:Sean Black took that into account when making his decision.

  AFD is not a vote, and as such it does not matter what the raw numbers were. Had every single person voted delete and an anonymous editor came by in the last seconds with a mention in The New York Times, the article would have been kept, and rightly so. Voting terminology is often used, but that is for convenience, not as a philosophical endorsement.

  Mao (game) differs from The Game (game) in that Mao appears to have sources, whereas The Game did not. A quick reading of the article shows a mention in Scientific American, as well as books and a film. Please don't ask me to defend that particular article right now, though, because this discussion is about this article, and because I haven't spent enough time thinking about that article. My vote for deletion was and is based on policy, not on a hatred for game/memecruft (which, for the record, I do not have).

  Finally, User:Sean Black closed the AFD, and User:Ashibaka brought it here. As far as I know, User:Ashibaka is not User:Sean Black's puppet. —Seqsea (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, keep deleted. Let's remember that Verifiability, along with Neutral point of view and No original research are the three innegotiable content policies. Anything that fails any one of them either needs to be cleaned up or be removed. As this is not verifiable, it shouldn't be here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as per above and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, keep deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability trumps vague hand-waving. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore.

  From WP:NOR:

  "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources"

  "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations."

  From Primary sources:

  "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information: advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources in a work on perceptions of modern technology, for example."

  The Game was refered to in an advertisement in MacWorld & MacAddict publications. Its legitimacy has been disputed because it includes a link to the Wikipedia article.

  From WP:NOR again:

  "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"

  It should be noted that all of the discussion above was made without reference to this potential source, and without anyone adding the first 2004 AfD to the list at the top. Kernow 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think the above provides some very good points. I further my Restore vote per above.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is an adult without any specialist knowledge supposed to verify this? Googling "the game" and seeing websites really isn't enough for me. That would only prove that someone was trying to spread this. Should I go to a college campus and ask random people if they know about it? Should I shout that I lost and see if anyone responds? Both of those are tenous at best. kotepho 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I believe the "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" clause in WP:NOR, referring to cases in which primary sources are OK to use for a Wikipedia article, is satisfied by first-person accounts (easily available on the Web) of people participating in The Game. If you have a bunch of people (in several different locations) who all say they play something called "The Game," and they agree on the rules, and the Wikipedia article reports that, how could any reasonable adult claim it's not verified? What if we worded it as "'The Game' is a game that some people claim to play..." ? Powers 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That clause pretty clearly applies to firsthand knowledge only. Apple pie is given as an example: anyone (or at least anyone in a Western nation) can verify firsthand the existence, nature, and popularity of apple pie so easily that it seems like nitpicking to require proof of same. The Game is an obscure activity that is largely confined to a small number of college students and is almost completely unknown outside its own subculture. "A bunch of people" can say anything about anything; that proves nothing. At the end of the day, an average reasonable person is left with hearsay and a few losethegame.iforumer.com/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=losethegame mostly justlostthegame.proboards92.com/index.cgi empty ilostthegame.com/forum/default.asp forums www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm and www.forgetthegame.co.uk/ websites, and that doesn't add up to verification. --phh 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The losethegame.iforumer.com/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=losethegame losethegame.com forum that you refer to was only made a few days ago. The pub7.bravenet.com/forum/590265674 old losethegame.com forum is not so empty. Kernow 21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The most active topic on that forum has 24 replies, the most recent of which is from February 15. The second most active topic has 4 replies. --phh 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I have pointed out to you a number of times in our previous discussions, if you actually read what you were refering to, before refering to it, it would save us both a lot of time. The post which you are talking about was the original Game Tree. The reason no replies have been left since then, is because that is when I set-up the Game Tree at its own site www2.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=thegame&view=9&rand=143131117, where now almost 500 people have left their details. The most recent reply on the old fourm was on the 22nd March. Also, you should take into account the objective of this game when refering to how much it has been discussed. Kernow 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment leaving aside the fact that Deletion Review is supposed to be about the process of an article being deleted, not the content, this is not an original source because that section refers to published works that are themselves original sources, not interviews that you conduct yourself. It is appropriate to discuss the legitimacy of a disputed source in the article where the legitimacy of that source exists outside Wikipedia, not within. And having no legitimate sources at all is still grounds for deletion under Verifiability constraints.Ziggurat 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how we can avoid commenting on the content. The closing admin made a content decision when closing instead of gauging consensus. While you are allowed to do that, the content becomes germane to the discussion over whether to overturn the result of the AFD in such cases. kotepho 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore- the passion of the deletionists notwithstanding, this was a useful article, which should trump the supposed need to have it written about in a non-internet source. I believe that in terms of something not being "verifiable" because it's only written about on blogs (so far), wikipedia is falling behind the times. Feelingscarfy 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't go that far. =) I mean, I still wouldn't want to go to a blog for information on the Reformation, Astrology, or Mack the Knife. But I think it's possible that certain categories of knowledge need a more flexibile definition of "acceptable source." "The Game" is an unusual situation in that it's a non-Internet meme, but the fact that numerous sources (even though they have less reliability than is normally acceptable) all agree on the basic definition ought to be enough. In this case. Powers 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. I was on the fence for a while, but Kernow convinced me. --Ashenai 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Seems like an obvious case to me, especially given the verifiability problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I went and looked at the deleted text, bcz i had just discovered that we do have a Nose picking article, which i had imagined was a real phenomenon not worthy of an article. Nose picking is a decent article, and should be kept. The Game (game) is as worthless as i expected Nose picking to be. Verifiability aside, it's not encyclopedic: a dict-def that's been inflated with delusions of grandeur.
  --Jerzy•t 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Comment - Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that Wikipedia should be able to cover this kind of thing? I mean, I'm all for the search for reputable sources and as soon as one is found and the article is restored, I'll be there to tend to it. But until then, for a phenomenon this notable (and all the controversy surrounding the deletion basically proves this isn't a case of a schoolyard fad blown out of proportion), maybe a disclaimer for the top of articles like this to the effect of: "This article documents a meme, which spreads mostly by word-of-mouth and is typically unverifiable through traditional, published sources. Please help Wikipedia by searching for reputable sources that mention the topic and citing them here." Once even one is found, the message can be removed (and I'll add a section to the article called 'Wikipedia Deletion Controversy,' or something ;)).--Hawkian 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable to me, except for the WP:SELF violation. =) Powers 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as per Kernow. -Mister Five 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted per above. It's an unverifiable mess.  RasputinAXP  c 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete what the fuck? Deleted out of process without any reasonable reason. Of course there are a lot of sources. Just fucking Google it.  Grue  19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just none that pass WP:RS. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and throw it to RFC. I personally think it was no concensus (which wouldn't really be a good result), but I think it was deleted for the correct reason. I don't really see relisting it resulting in anything other than no consensus either. Nevertheless, I believe there is enough support for this article that further debate is needed and that DRV is not the place for it. kotepho 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a good idea, but perhaps WP:RFAR would be better; an RFC would only clarify the lack of community consensus on this issue. Mangojuice 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment RFAR doesn't really like content issues and I'm not fond of them changing policy either. I wouldn't particularly object to it though. kotepho 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Legitimate and well-thought-out reading of consensus. We can't vote down WP:NOR, no matter how many people think so. -- SCZenz 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't repeat all the arguments above, except to say that there is some small class of concepts that may not ever be verifiable, because of the nature of what they are. This concept is in that class. Further, sometimes common sense is required rather than strict adherence to process.(Shocking statement from me, eh?) This is one of those times. The Game is notable enough to merit inclusion. An article could certainly include discussion of why it's not easily verifiable without shading into original research... Overturn and undelete ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The article was a total mess, made up entirely of unverifiable information, original research, and nonsensical "psychological analysis." Sadly, I can't see that changing if the article were to be restored. WarpstarRider 22:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Game_%28game%29&action=edit&oldid=45700577 are we talking about the same article? --Kizor 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how the article looked for most of the time before it was finally deleted. To elaborate: The article was getting filled with loads of unverifiable original research about The Game's origins, "rule variations" and "strategies", and psychological jargon-filled discussions on memory suppression. Not to mention the debate over whether this is really an actual "game," and whether the article should treat it as such.
      Cleanup of the article and requests for sources were attempted, but it continued to fill up with junk. This, combined with the lack of reliable sources, is what led to its deletion. WarpstarRider 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The arguments about lack of verification are compelling. The counter-arguments are, to my mind, weak. Furthermore, the repeated attempts to stuff the ballot are very concerning. They appear to be seriously degrading our civility. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion In a case such as this, how is one to verify? It isn't as if this is something that would have a great deal of attention devoted to it on the internet (aside from declerations of loss, of course), or have papers published on it, or have any sort of acceptable (by Wikipedia standards) doccumentation. That isn't to say, however, it doesn't exist. Clearly, given the number of people (bloggers, myspacers, facebookers, etc.) who are playing this game (or claim to play this game, which is essentially the equivalent), regardless of if they are acceptable sources (again, by Wiki standards), speaks to the existance of this game. So how is one to find a reputable source on the matter? It's not as if The Game would be something one would see covered in a science journal or a book or anything of the sort. So again, how is one to verify the information provided in the article? Darquis 03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems to me that most of these delete votes are ridiculous, because they are basically this: "until a scientific journal writes an article on it, no article here." So the moment someone writes a report on it, all of your votes are revoked? Upon one scientific report? Well great! I'm going to start writing an article about the game, and I'll send it off for publication! (I may actually do this, but do you see the point? This is ridiculous beurocracy).-- Alfakim --  talk  13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it doesn't have to be a scientific journal, but yes that's exactly what WP:NOR suggests. To quote, "If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet". If the information was peer-reviewed by a journal or reputatble paper, then that would count under WP:RS and I, amoung others, would support the (re-)creation of this article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted An obvious coorelary to WP:POINT is "don't make external websites to disrupt wikipedia." Hpuppet - «Talk» 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, except that website isn't intended to disrupt WP, it's intended to find WP-acceptable sources for The Game. Powers 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree. While there are plenty of good reasons to endorse this deletion, I don't believe this is one of them. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion. It seems to me that the problem here is that the proponents of deletion do not realise that the blogs are being used as primary material to prove that a substantial number of people play The Game. Secondly, there is the problem of verifiability of the rules. While some of the sources cited by the people voting to keep might not ordinarily be regarded as reliable, they are sources talking about themselves (as players of The Game), which are permitted under WP:RS. --David.Mestel 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - why should Slashdot subculture remain with only references to comments made on an external tech news site and The Game (game) not, given the latter has references (including www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1504247 and those on User:Stephen_Deken/The_Game_(game)) pre-dating the original articles creation date, 00:01, 19 August 2004 (retreived through an admin in #wikipedia). --MilkMiruku 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, per Sam, Tito, Rossami, Xoloz, Zoe, fuddlemark, and most especially Seqsea, who has done a marvellous job here. This has severe problems with verification and sourcing, and quite simply cannot be an encyclopedia entry, not even on a relatively liberal encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I'm quite concerned at some of the incredible interpretations of policy being advanced to butress the argument to restore. Sean was faced with a tough close, but he made a good call by the encyclopedia. —Encephalon 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Restore. I'm not a registered user, I'm only an occasional user of WP and it's clear people such as you refer to anyone like me who posts a comment with severe contempt. That's your own supremacy problems, not mine. Mine is how ridiculous everybody has been about this deletion. Now, I can't be bothered reading all the policy references; I don't overly care. I just thought a bunch of obsessive self-invloved people might appreciate an outside, grass-roots opinion. I imagine there are millions of games around the world - some restricted to a small group of friends, some played the whole world over. Clearly WP cannot abide to list every single one. However, there are certain games such as "hide and seek" or "Simon Says" that have been correctly identified as infiltrating societies the world over. Finding the game unverifiable is utterly ridiculous. I spent a year in the UK last year, and it was such a shock when I found out that four of our group of friends - from all over the world (Australia, US, Germany and Wales) - all played the game. Up until then I thought it was just a Melbourne thing, or at the very most, and Australia thing. The very fact that this game has managed to spread over the entire globe should be verification enough to show that it deserves to be referenced in an encyclopedia that is allegedly concerned with knowledge. Pull your heads out of WP's backside of policy and try to look at this issue with an objective outsiders eye. The deleted article in question was providing people with knowledge that is more generally known than a lot of other articles on WP. Why deny people that? Because you don't like 'the game'? Well I don't like fascism. And that's still on Wikipedia... both referenced and freely exercised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Your strawman argument that people don't like the game is utter rubbish. Try actually reading the deletion comments. Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. WP:V is very clear on the subject. 193.122.31.188 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted - I have read the original article. This really just seems to be a bunch of bloggers trying to spread their meme. - Hahnchen 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... it says right on top of this page: "Also note: although not verifiable per Wikipedia standards, it is quite easily verifiable (see above) that The Game is very widespread, and not just confined to "small groups of college students" or a "schoolground fad"." --Kizor 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted This game seems to be nonsense. By what I've read it's just a game that you win when not thinking about it and you lose if you think about it. Plus the source I read this from seems to be unreliable due to the fact that it just lists some rules and has a message board with few posts. In my opinion, it doesn't seem notable. Mushrambo 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that our thoughts on the meaningfulness of article subjects don't matter. Furthermore, as is mentioned on top of the page it's quite easily verifiable that the game is very widespread - which kinda shreds the non-notable argument. --Kizor 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The very first item in Wikipedia:Five pillars says that Wikipedia "is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy." Almost all the people arguing for the restoration of the article are doing so on the grounds that it can be validated from their experience. It doesn't matter. We need reliable sources. And no-one, even the supporters of the return of the article www.savethegame.org/wiki/List_of_reliable_sources_referring_to_The_Game trying to collect them, can find them. I certainly can't. Please note that as well as repeating "where are the sources for this?" regularly and removing unsourced material from articles (after due warning), I try to have moments of relatively constructive contribution, and have quite a history of doing the work and finding references for articles which are bereft of them. Even when the article is not of interest to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cefn_Mably_Hospital&diff=46184488&oldid=45813563 Example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teacher%27s_diary&diff=prev&oldid=42357122 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norval_Marley&oldid=28250853 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Henson&diff=prev&oldid=41597703 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentwyn_Dynamo_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=46029939 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cefn_Mably_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=45838915 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teacher%27s_diary&diff=prev&oldid=42357150 example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurasian_Badger&diff=21567476&oldid=21130244 example and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMercedes_Lackey&diff=34806326&oldid=34777496 example.) I tried to do that this time. And along with Seqsea, I couldn't, and still can't, find references to this Game. I tried. I really did! On-line and off-line. That's why I believe the deletion was correct. Telsa (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree completely with that. I, too, have tried to find pages on this, but have had no luck whatsoever. Every time I get a hit for "The Game" it seems to be about a rapper who goes by said name. I believe that this article is still nonsense and therefore keep my vote as Endorse Deletion. Mushrambo 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as per Mark. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reinstatement I've been fighting for this article for too long to give up now. I'm not going to repost my reasons here, but I still believe this article should exist. brabblebrex 06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The Game exists, more so than some religions. Perhaps we should delete the Bible because there's no evidence of Genesis? Oh, and you just lost it :) btw. Answers.com has an article of the game, for what good it makes. - G3, 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Answers.com article is just an old mirror of the deleted WP article. WarpstarRider 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse deletion: the word wobblegrommit exists, because I just made it up, and now exists on WP, but is too trivial for its own entry. Perhaps a compromise would be to mention "the game" under some philosophy section on self-referential ideas. Stephen B Streater 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been mentioned repeatedly, notability is not the issue here. --Kizor 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and improve. Yes better sources would be nice, but The Game is phenomenally popular. I first heard about it through b3ta a while ago. Then I remember when I started at university someone "lost the game". I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that almost half the people in the room (who before that week had never even met each other, and came from all over the country) knew what he was talking about. And of course the rest do now. The Cambridge facebook group for "The Game" has 973 members, making it one of the largest groups. Unfortunately non-members can't see it, but here's a screenshot. As you can see it is already more popular than Pink Floyd, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Led Zeppelin, Scrubs (TV show), Homestar Runner and in fact the North of England. There are tons of articles less well sourced than this, and without a significant number of Wikipedians and outside websites vouching for their authenticity. the wub "?!" 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The popularity of the game is not the issue, and has nothing to do with its deletion. It was deleted because it was not verifiable. That other articles exist in the encyclopedia without citing their sources is not a reason to allow this one to exist; rather, it is a reason to go out and source the rest of our articles. We are building an encyclopedia, and in the absence of expert contributors with reputations to protect and PhDs to their credit, we maintain credibility by pointing to outside sources that back up what we write. —Seqsea (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, Keep Deleted per the many arguments stated above. Eusebeus 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. It doesn't matter if people remember it. Verify it. That line right under the edit box says "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable". If it's not verifiable, it must be deleted, and it must remain deleted until reputable non-blog, non-forum, non-created-for-the-purpose-of-saving-an-article references are available. Also note that the making of www.savethegame.org is a gross violation of WP:POINT. Proto||type 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I said before, Savethegame is a webpage devoted to finding source that are Wikipedia-reliable, it does not appear to be intended as a source in of itself. There seems to be no WP:POINT issue here. JoshuaZ 14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just noticed that a "letter to the editor" sort of column at the BBC has a mention of The Game. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4638900.stm Is that a reliable source? Ashibaka tock 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is the same situation we have for things in imdb bios or blogs. A letter to the editor is not a reliable source even if the publication that it appears in IS a reliable source. --Syrthiss 16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, here's what I don't get. Obviously, if someone wrote a letter and said "Hey, there's this great new game sweeping the nation, everyone should start playing it," that's clearly not reliable evidence for the game's existence. However, when the letter ITSELF is part of the game, it's equally obvious that it is being played. That the letter was written is verifiable. The letter itself is the game. How is that not verifiable evidence for the game? Powers 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The letter, even if it is part of the game, is not a reliable source. Its kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy...and exactly why we rely on information verified by reliable sources and not original research to populate our encyclopedia. --Syrthiss 16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion; there is no real reason to delete this page. How on earth is Wikipedia harmed by having this article on there? Not at all. Let's relist it... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Undeleting this article without any reliable sources does harm Wikipedia by directly attacking the project's credibility. Considerable effort has been expended trying to find one source for this article that is not based on anonymous contributions or hearsay. After this much effort has been exerted, restoring the article without an independent third party publishing a report of the game in a peer reviewed publication would effectively mean that there is no way to tell if the articles the Wikipedia community has spent time reviewing are true or a hoax. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as an encyclopedia must be able to show the basis for the information it contains. --Allen3 ^talk 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. Yes, I know I'm not a reliable wikipedia editor - I'm somewhat of the wiki equivalent of a forum lurker. However, it seems very much to me that the point of nonverifiability is to prevent articles from appearing here that actually aren't verifiable. The Game is a meme; as such, its existence is entirely word-of-mouth (or word-of-keyboard, in some, but by no means, all cases). No, it has not had peer-reviewed articles written on it, because really, what sort of journal would it fit into? I suppose there's a chance that, eventually, it'll be used as an example of the concept of a meme itself, but until then, yes, it's restricted to being mentioned constantly, all over the world, on blogs and forums and real-life talking. In addition to all the people I know play in real life (because really, most of Harvey Mudd knows of The Game), I have had a good handful of experiences where I come into some new forum in which I, personally, have not mentioned the game, to see comments already being made about it. Wikipedia's article has become one of the main sources for linking people to information about it, not because it was made up here, but only because it's the sort of thing that's mentioned mainly in passing, and in in-person encounters, not the sort of thing that gets huge papers written about it anywhere other than an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, my argument is that it's ridiculously well-known, and that, in cases such as these, primary documents (i.e. people all over the internet mentioning that they've lost) should count for something, verifiability-wise. --Adam Field 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per Adam. --Goobergunch|? 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is part of what WP:NOR is designed to prevent, though. While it states that the purpose is to protect the 'Pedia from "physics cranks", it serves an additional purpose of preventing people using Wikipedia to popularise and spread memes. By your argument, any meme that becomes large enough should have an article, even if it's spectacularly non-notable or if it's been created solely to become large enough for an article. The function of Wikipedia must be to document these things, not to promote them. Kinitawowi 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, yes. I do think that any meme that becomes large enough that huge numbers of people all over the world know about and discuss it should have an article, even if it was created solely to become large enough for an article (I'm not sure why this would have any bearing on the issue at all, assuming that it was spread via other means, and only given an article after it became widely known). As for it being "spectactularly non-notable", well, I'd think the huge numbers of people all over the world discussing it would call it otherwise, or why would they be discussing it? As far as the game article, specifically, goes, its point was fairly obviously to to document, not to promote. Yes, as the best reference document existing on the internet, it did get linked to a fair amount by people who wanted to give their friends the opportunity to learn what it was without telling them explicitly... but that doesn't mean it was created for that purpose. And the game did, after all, exist many years before the wikipedia article did. --Adam Field 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an interesting argument and one of the most coherent made on this topic in a while. Unfortunately, the flaw in the argument is that without reliable sources, there's no way for the rest of us to know that the facts behind it are correct. Take, for example, your assertion that "the game did, after all, exist many years before the wikipedia article did." How do you know? How can the rest of us know? Given that anyone can edit anonymously and that even logged in users are pseudonymous, how can we be reasonably sure of that statement? No change of vote, I'm afraid. Rossami (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not necessarily trying to change your vote - just using you as a sounding board for my own opinions, in the hopes that perhaps I will convince others who, being on the fence about the issue, decide to read these comments. That said - yes, there could be a massive conspiracy of people and their sock-puppets to create and disseminate back-dated blog entries and the like. Personally, though, it seems to me that thinking that is just as much of an original research concern as stating that someone was, say, quoted incorrectly in a news article or somesuch. Yes, one went through a peer-review and the other did not... but it seems to me that a sufficient body of first-hand sources that are not obviously connected to one another in any way, should count somewhat towards showing that something like this exists. I am aware that this would require a slight bending of current rules - I just feel that bending them in this way would be a reasonable thing to do. Oh, and that was my answer for how we can be reasonably sure, if you didn't catch it - if a large enough number of people that have no obvious connection to wikipedia are discussing it, and enough of them were in fact discussing it in permanent - even if not peer-reviewed - sources, before the article was made, then that would seem to be a pretty good indication that people were thinking about the game at that time. People can pull tricks with time on the internet, it's true, but there's no reason we should believe that everyone has done so...? Synopsis: First-hand sources are first-hand sources. They should be treated slightly different from second- or third-hand sources, methinks. --Adam Field 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been attempting to make the same argument, but I don't think it's going anywhere. Unfortunately, we need a secondary source; the primary sources aren't cutting it in the minds of most folks here. I personally see these primary sources as an exception (as listed on WP:V) to the need for secondary sources, like raw data that doesn't need interpreting. But we seem to be in the minority. Powers 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion and restore It is pretty obvious from all the comments here, and from the many blogs that discuss it, that the Game exists, and is fairly popular. That should be enough reason to have the article. No censorship! Sasha Slutsker 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. These policies are very carefully thought out to insure that Wikipedia articles meet a minimum standard of being verified by references to reputable published sources. Unless and until this subject meets nthe standards of those policies, it does not belong in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read those. But this is verifiable. Plenty of sites mention it. That's the point. Sasha Slutsker 01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per Ashibaka. Also, AfD discussion showed a clear "keep" consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman113 (talk • contribs)
  • That matters not. AfD (nor DRV) cannot overturn policy, and WP:V is policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of arguments at work here. First is whether WP:V is too strict in certain cases, and second is whether even the current version of WP:V actually allows this sort of article. Simply saying "we can't overturn WP:V" isn't an argument, especially since the article is not unambiguously in violation of it. Powers 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Does no one else find the need to find traditionally reliable sources in this case a little ridiculous? No one arguing for overturning wants to ignore WP:V or WP:RS, but this is a meme, and wholly veriafiable through nontraditional sources such as blogs, which ought to be good enough for a meme of such noteworthy status. Maybe a caveat in policy is what's needed. Until that happens, or a true RS is found, though, why can't this article survive with ((unsourced))? Hawkian 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The purpose of ((unsourced)) is not to justify the creation of articles that violate policy; rather, it is to alert editors to a problem that requires attention, research, and, if no appropriate sources can be found, AFD. —Seqsea (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment: I've been seeing complaints that googling for "the game" gets few sources about this particular game. It's true - it's a rather common phrase, with, among other distractions, a movie, an album, a rapper, and at least three other games I can think of named the same. However, if you search for "lose the game" (or "lost the game"), about half the hits on the first page are related. Furthermore, if you make the restriction slightly tighter, to "just lost the game", then the vast majority of the hits on the first few pages are relevent. Just noting. --Adam Field 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Kernow and Adam Field. --Kizor 12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment I just thought of: People are stating that college newspapers would be a good source to find. First off, I fail to see how these are any more valuable than blogs - I've seen the process at school papers, and it seems to be mainly, "you give us an article, if we think it's interesting we'll check it for typos (but not much else) and then print it". I'd be fine with accepting articles from papers like that as primary sources for things like the game, but then, I'd be happy accepting blogs as primary sources, too. It would be far sketchier trying to use them as nonprimary sources, though. However, my bigger point is this: nobody has been able to find any articles about the game in school papers, and there's a darn good reason for it. Explicitly stating the rules of the game, to those people who would take them seriously, is a truly jackassey thing to do! Once you know the rules, assuming you care, you are forced to play. For that reason, people, or at least people I know, have adopted an unofficial rule that you don't tell people what the game is unless they really are dying to know. Writing "I just lost" somewhere public is a good prank - it only affects people who already know what it means. Writing the full rules to the game somewhere, on the other hand, is a potentially mean-spirited prank, and I can't see our paper, at least, doing anything of the sort. Of course, yes, most school papers just wouldn't print it because they'd think it was stupid. This is because most schools aren't full of geeks like mine is. But still.--Adam Field 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you have confused me. You say that "most school papers just wouldn't print [something about the game] because they'd think it was stupid" but you think that Wikipedia should publish something about this? If it's too stupid for a student newspaper, what makes it appropriate for an encyclopedia that aspires to compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica?
    (By the way, your comment about student newspapers is well put. They may be a half-step above blogs but few could be considered reliable sources.) Rossami (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is stupid. I'm perfectly willing to admit this, despite finding it quite funny. I don't see why this would make it any less notable, though. It's something a large number of people know and care about, thus (assuming people decide, as I'd like them to, that primary sources are enough to show verifiability) it belongs in an encyclopedia of everything by its notability, even if it is entirely silly. There are a lot of articles on silly topics here, which makes sense, as someone might want to look them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Field (talk • contribs)
• Bring it back. Yes it's stupid and yes it's annoying (and quite possibly evil too), but that's no reason to delete it. MC Hammer 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't the reason it was deleted. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, really. Votes like that really don't help our case - we need to argue merely that either a. this article was verifiable under current rules, or b. the current rules can and should be bent to allow the level of verifiability the article does have. That is all we need to argue, nothing else. It was not deleted for being stupid, annoying, or evil. --Adam Field 23:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I fear the serious discussion of the merits is getting obscured by those who don't fully understand the nuances and just vote "Keep" because they like The Game. Powers 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the other way around, to be fair (and anal). --Kizor 08:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore: Seems clear to me that the result of the AFD was no consensus. What to do from here is anybodies guess. I've www.google.com/search?hs=lT1&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22just+lost+the+game%22+%22the+game+is%22&btnG=Search googled it a little and am satisfied there is a case to be made for this article. At least, enough of a case to respect that consensus is necessary. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong restore: the hundreds of blog entries, thousands of comments, and the exhaustive research on where it came from, are valid sources for this because there is nothing about The Game that is in doubt. Every post that states the rules of The Game is not just stating the existence of the game — it is an actual instantiation of it.
  Let us say that somebody writes on the LiveJournal entry that "almost 2 million journals are actively used"www.livejournal.com/stats.bml. Where's the proof? Well, the people who run livejournal say it's true. But how do they know? Well, they count posts. But... AHA! Posts aren't valid sources, therefore you cannot prove that any journals are actually used.
  This is of course nonsense. But what's the difference? A website has counted hundreds of players of The Gamewww.savethegame.org/wiki/Compiled_list_of_sources, mostly on blogs and forums, but AHA! posts aren't valid sources, therefore you cannot prove that they were actually playing the game.
  Of course they are. If they weren't playing, they wouldn't know the rules. But they do, therefore they were. --Spudtater 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's a terrible argument for this situation. The first example is simply counting all of the active journals used, regardless of content. It's statistical data about the website coming from the website itself.
    In your second example, you are referring to the actual content of the blogs and such. It is this, the content of a blog or forum post on a particular subject, that does not qualify as a reliable source. WarpstarRider 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until criteria for includion in wikipedia are met: independent reputable source. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as per Ashibaka and Adam Field. It seems like Wikipedia policy was written without even having the potential for such an article as this in mind. I think that the policy is out of date and should be modified, and therefore it is acceptable to invoke WP:IAR and have the article remain. WP:NOT seems to call for the deletion of about half of the Wikipedia. In any case, The Game is more notable and about equally verifiable as the ORLY? Owl, which I don't see anyone deleting. --Anaraug 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevent. The status of O RLY? is not being discussed here. 212.13.213.48 08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever. My statement concerning O RLY? was simply an afterthought to my actual explanation of my support for the restoration of the article. I only intended to suggest it as a further example of an article of dubious notability and/or verifiability. Since those who wish that the article remain deleted are basing their arguments on verifiability and notability (mostly verifiability), any examples of how this issue is being dealt with elsewhere on Wikipedia are useful as a reference for how to improve the Wikipedia as a whole, which I hope is everyone's goal here. --Anaraug 09:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not run by precedent. I feel that allowing articles that can't be verified by reliable sources is highly detrimental to wikipedia and it's credibility. In fact, policy already says that we can't do that. We can't ignore WP:V, it even says so. 212.13.213.48 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would that the matter be more straightforward. The Game is a rare border case. Anyway, the O RLY?? deletion debate does not set a precedent, but it does discuss a somewhat similar situation and the points given in it might well be valuable here. --Kizor 15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's also interesting to note that I didn't see anyone suggest the lack of verifiable references to "O RLY" as a reason to delete it. The only difference I see is that "O RLY" is an internet phenomenon, and thus easily verifiable, and The Game isn't. Powers 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the AfD wasn't out of process, whether it's notable enough or not. --Rory096 07:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might I suggest: a google web search itself could be used as a primary source. From WP:NOR: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." A google web search such as www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22I+just+lost+the+game%22+OR+%22the+game+is+to+forget%22+-wikipedia+-wiki&btnG=Search this one is raw data, but is reliable, and can be easily used to back up claims of what The Game is and what its rules are. The article isn't making any evaluative claims here: just that the game is a known phenomenon, and what its rules are. Mangojuice 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not quite. Google isn't a primary source either; the primary sources in that instance are the vast number of non-notable blogs that the Google search links to, and WP:V explicitly says that under Self-published sources, "books, personal websites and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." And before you jump on the word "largely", it goes on to list the exceptions - and they don't include memes. Kinitawowi 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You're missing the point of my comment. We usually don't think of Google searches as sources at all, but I actually do mean to use the google search results as a primary source in itself. You argue rightly that any of those individual sources is not up to snuff, but what I'm saying is that the result of a Google search is much more significant than any individual result it turns up. What the Google search shows is that lots of different blogs and websites refer to this game and describe it consistently. No individual source proves that, it's the results of a Google search that does prove that. What I want to debate is whether there is some reason that (1) Google searches shouldn't be primary sources, or (2) Google searches are unreliable sources (and if so, in what way). Mangojuice 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Google search is exactly as significant as its results, though. Google may be able to come up with 9580 matches for some search phrase, but if not a one of those is a suitable source then the search was pointless in the first place. Let's face it, a Google search result is nothing more (or less) than a list of links; and there is no way a list of links off some website can be acceptable as a primary source, even if there are 9580 entries on it. Kinitawowi 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really buy that; it depends on what statement the google search is trying to back up. For instance, the statement "A google search on this phrase returns over 9000 links" is perfectly backed up by a google search, though it's not likely to be useful in an article. Interpreting that claim a little bit is certainly reasonable; the question is, how much? Mangojuice 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an interesting question. Can very large numbers in a google test be evidence of the degree to which a word or concept has become widespread? Intuitively, it makes some sense. One of the assumptions in the question is that the numbers are sufficiently large for it to be impossible this to be merely the result of a concerted effort by a small number of partisans. Google, unfortunately, is subject to just that kind of bias in its results. That's why, for example, the google test is a poor indicator for topics associated with pornography.
        I certainly would not trust the raw result before the elimination of the "non-unique" results. Given the known problems with skewing of the results, I'd probably place low weight even on the de-duplicated results. It's a single data point. It might be supporting evidence but not enough, in my opinion, to decide an issue without corroboration from other sources. Rossami (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here's something I found from the third deletion page, by AceMyth: "We've lost track of Wikipedia's ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's existence, then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing any information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Wikipedia's true goal." --Kizor 09:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the goal of Wikipedia is to create a quality source of information, it is not the case that WP:V is a mere guideline created to aid in our pursuit of that goal. It is, instead, the most important principle we have with regards to content inclusion. There is no room for pushing aside this particular policy by claiming that "nobody contests the truth of what is being written". I think the policy itself puts it succinctly: "The three policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." —Seqsea (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • David.Mestel makes an argument just below that' far better than anything I could would be. --Kizor 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per EVERYTHING, especially the comment above about restricting information! --Liface 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can we also have a standardized voting phrase? I don't know whether to put restore, undelete, etc. --Liface 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it's "overturn". --Kizor 01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. I know the game exists, because I have friends who play it, but without a verifiable source, this is clearly original research. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Firstly, on the process of ending the AfD. While WP:V cannot be trumped by consensus, the real issue on the AfD was whether it and other policies were applicable in this situation. While AfD is not a vote, it is an attempt to form consensus, the extent of which can often be determined by votes. To delete an article just because a single administrator made the highly subjective judgement that "the discussion went towards delete" is just ridiculous.

Secondly, on the substantive issue. I think it is important to distinguish between the value of 'blogs as primary and secondary sources. That is to say, if I said on my 'blog, "Thousands of people worldwide play the game", that would not be a reliable source, but if I said that, "I play the Game", that would be taken as sufficient evidence that I did, and a combination of thousands of these on Google would show that thousands play The Game. Further, if I and many other people all agreed in our primary source material that the rules we used were X, Y and Z, then that is sufficient evidence that these are indeed the rules. While this article falls under the clause of WP:NOR that allows an article to be based entirely on primary sources, since the primary sources used could be found by a simple Google search by anyone, and the facts are not really under dispute by anyone, I think that, while blogs and personal websites are not generally accepted as secondary sources, the very large number which describe The Game can, I think be taken as a legitimate secondary source (albeit perhaps a fairly weak one).

Lastly, I think that we need to use a little common sense here. We have something that is clearly notable, clearly true, and about which many third-party opinions can easily be found. Really, at the end of the day, policies (with the exception perhaps of the principle of WP:V) like WP:NOR are just there to help us build a better encyclopedia. Does it really help our encyclopedia to delete this article? --David.Mestel 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+1, Insightful. This is exactly the argument I've been trying to present. Well said. Powers 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 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 and of the different authorities or sources." Kernow 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: People seem to be getting a bit confused here. Just because it only Googles a few hundred "Unique Results", it doesn't mean that there are only a few hundred individual websites mentioning it. I learnt from WP:GOOGLE that the number of unique reults is actually the number of distinct web pages among the first 1000 hits. Indeed, "Microsoft" only returns around 500 "unique results". --David.Mestel 06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Verfiable and reliable SOURCE FOUND. See talk page for The Game.-- Alfakim --  talk  17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single human-interest newspaper article is not, in my opinion, sufficient to support an entire encyclopedia article. As was said on the Talk page already, we don't know where the author got his/her information. No change of opinion yet. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the **** do you WANT, then? The existence and rules of The Game have been irrefutable, at least for all practical purposes, all along. This is independent high-quality verification in the press, this is a secondary source. --Kizor 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say I'm with Kizor here, though of course I wouldn't endorse his implied strong language - we've now found a reference in a reliable published source. What do you want, a cover article in Nature? --David.Mestel 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, sorry about flying off the handle a bit. --Kizor 22:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, keep deleted Admin was correct to close it as delete, because it's unverifiable. --kingboyk 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? What do you call trapdoor.be/the_game_article.jpg? It translates (roughly) as:

The player who loses the game by thinking about it, is obliged to state out loud that he lost. One version says that all other players in the vicinity lose as well, other versions give other players a short amount of time - ten minutes ot half an hour, the rules are vague - to forget about the game again . Whichever version is played, for the losers not all is lost: the moment that the Game...

The Game must be the simplest game in the world. It all comes down to: "the moment you think about it, you loose". Psychology 101: try very hard not to think about something and you will think about it.

In the US and UK the game is, mainly in schools and university, a modest hype. In Brazil, Australia and Japan, more and more youngsters follow. Nearer to us, the game starts appearing as well - slowly at the moment, but unstoppable all the same. The first rule determines that whoever knows of the game, is playing it - so there's no escaping it.

In the UK, fanatics have developed several strategies to make their fellow players lose. They write "The Game" in big letters on the chalkboard in front of the class, they hide little notes saying that the founder of the note has lost. The ultimate strategy is, of course, to remind the competition of the Game as often as possible, without being reminded of it yourself.

But every victory is short, for it is always temporary. The ultimate victory does not exist, the Game never ends. Even for expert players, it is not known what the origins of the game are. On the internet, several websites are dedicated to finding those origins.

If that's not verification, I don't know what is. --David.Mestel 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since this meme clearly does exist, both socially and textually, it seems pedantic and overly dogmatic to delete the article just for the sake of sticking to a rule which actually hinders Wikipedia in this place.

Reading this discussion, and the discussion on the page itself, is disappointing. The most part of voters would seem to aim to damage wikipedia for the sake of sticking to a rule which doesn't even have much relevance in this instance.

Memes are mutable and unfixed by their very nature, but I liked the fact that every time the game came up, I'd reference this wikipedia article. I know some groups even kept printouts of it so that if they lost The Game then they could refer people to the document itself (yes, people actually play this In The Real World). Why doesn't Wikipedia actually create a damn reference instead of fiddyfaddling around with looking for others'. Harmonica 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Just because we don't know the origins of The Game doesn't mean it is unverifiable. It clearly exists (my high school age son loses The Game repeatedly, as do his friends). I can't understand how "verifiability" can be used to justify deletion in this case. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:41, 11 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.