Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle hand game (Second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. OK, I read it all. The sources, the article, the entire discussion here. I must say, the discussion here was the most entertaining of it. Despite the persistent hammering by large caliber arguments on the WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR themes, the counter arguments put up a spirited defense of the article. Even though I take it that I'm one of only a few people to grow up in the U.S. without having heard of this game, I was persuaded by the common folklore arguments. Unfortunately, common folklore doesn't provide the facts and details needed to write an article. That gets back to the WP:NOR arguments. On balance, it can't stay without sources because despite what everyone else seems to "know" about this, it still needs sources. —Doug Bell talk 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle hand game

[edit]
Circle hand game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Originally kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle hand game in May. In the six plus months since, the article has remained obstinately unsourced, other than Urban Dictionary and the like. Each new edit seems to be either original research or yet another thing made up in school one day. Verifiability applies to things made up in school as well, even if they are things that "everyone knows about". WP:IHEARDOFTHIS does not trump WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is for those of you who say because the nature of this game is that it can't be cited, it should be deleted. Folklores and bedtime stories have been passed around by word of mouth for thousands of years, yet they cannot be sourced, does that mean they should be deleted on wikipedia as well? This game is very popular amongst children and young adults, and has been passed around by word of mouth and popular culture. Just because you haven't heard of it does not make it unpopular. From personal experience, I can say that the vast majority of young adults have heard of this game, making it more popular than some folklores. 10:00, 9 December 2006
  • Delete OR cruf-article. Six months is long enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you took out everything in the article that couldn't be cited to a reliable source, you'd have nothing left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article is becoming a place to just post gibberish - I have cleaned up the worst of it but lets get rid of this piece of junk. Markco1 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nature of this game is one that cannot be sourced. You're not going to find information in any newspaper articles, because it is somewhat of an underground thing, and even if it were sourced, that article would be inaccurate because the game does have so many different rules from school-to-school. The page should remain because it is a popular game in schools. Perhaps it should be locked for editing, but not deleted. Kherrell4 10:40, 8 December 2006. — Kherrell4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • There's so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to start. First of all, I said there IS sourcing (albeit it doesn't look very good, but it's still there.) Second of all, how is ignoring verifiability ignoring NPOV? Just because a statement exists as a source doesn't instantly make it NPOV, nor does a statement that isn't sourced always not NPOV. Third, this isn't WP:NFT seeing as it's obviously been around (see: this discussion and people saying "I know about this game.") We really shouldn't remove information for no reason other then it's hard to verify - especially if we already have verification.-Ryanbomber 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are junk, NPOV cannot be verified without independent critical review (of which none exists), 90% of the content added over time is things made up in school one day (check the history). Find credible, non-trivial sources and you can keep the article. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE OK, time for today's Wikipedia lesson: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level.

And further into the rule The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. and Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources

Already you have stated there are no reliable, third-party sources on this, so the article Fails WP:V and Reliable sources

Moving on...

Original Research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

kipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Well, by looking at this, we see the article in question is in violation of this policy. So we have an article which is NOT 'improving' wikipedia, is Original Research, does not cite reliable third party sources, and is not verifiable by the common person. BTW: Ignore all rules is meant not as a way for someone to use it as a 'get out of jail free' card to add whatever they want. It's mainly there for things such as edit wars and stopping vandialism. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There have been a number of these types of games that have been nominated for AfD in the past month or two. All have been hoaxes and follow a similar pattern in which a number of people, likely sockpuppets/single-purpose accounts, come to the AfD and talk about how popular and widespread the game is. These same accounts post ridiculous statements on the articles talk page. While this particular article seems to be a little less extreme in this sense, it still certainly hints that its a hoax in the same way. I doubt the game actually exists and even if it does, an unverifiable playground game with varying rules and names certainly in unencyclopedic. --The Way 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo reliable sources of notability. A non notable web site or two that mentions this is not a reliable source.Obina 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I understand the issue of verifiability is problematic to the article, due to the nature of the game... I for one, had seen this game come up at least once a day at my high school. I'm not suggesting that my experience lends any merit to the article, but I am aware that this isn't some inside joke people just randomly decide to make an article about. I'm positive that there must be a reference to this game somewhere, someplace (even, perhaps, in a book of adolescent school games, or whatever). This isn't really something just "made up in school one day"; it was just something you were passively made aware of in adolescent, like birthday punches and wedgies. This is all from the bottom of my heart. --C.Logan 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had seen something like this going on back when I was in high school, but it's an entirely unencyclopedic topic. The article states that the only real rule is the use of the circle-hand, then lists a bunch of unsourced rule variations. Then it lists a bunch of strategies. This is all original research, and should not be allowed.
    It's quite similar to what often happens with that "The Game" article, where random people keep trying to add in their own rule variations, strategies, and various other nonsense. The difference here is, that article actually has a print source, and removing all of the OR doesn't leave us with a blank article. This article has no reliable sources, it isn't verifiable, so it has to go. WarpstarRider 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is such a well known game that if it fails Wikipedia source requirments, then there's something wrong with our source requirements. — coelacan talk — 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with them, any more than not having information on that character in the fifth episode of the third Star Trek series who appeared for 2 frames means that our inclusion requirements are wrong. Wikipedia isn't meant to be for everything that is true. -Amarkov blahedits 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting that there's a problem with notability (which is what your star trek example would refer to). This may or may not fail on notability, but that isn't the issue that's being raised. The issue here is verifiability. And I'm saying that if something which millions of people have first-hand experience with is nevertheless not verifiable by our policy, then there's something wrong with our verifiability standards. Can you at least respond to my point instead of a strawman? — coelacan talk — 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You missed my point. My point was that Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything which is true, just things which are verifiable. And if there are no sources, it is not verifiable. There's no way you can twist the definition to make things which have no sources such. -Amarkov blahedits 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which is that it most certainly is verifiable. You already knew about it before this article, didn't you? And so does everyone else voting here (except for "The Way", apparently... what hole did they crawl out of?). If three people sit in a room together and one of them brings up some childhood game, and the other two say "oh yeah I remember that," then that's verifiability. It doesn't matter if they can't find a newspaper article or a scholarly journal on it. It's verifiable because everyone here in this vote knows that it's real. That's enough verifiability for folklorists, for example, who often have only oral history to work from. We all know it, so it's verifiable. If our standards then say that it's not verifiable, then our standards are methodologically wrong. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While three people sitting in a room saying "Yeah I remember that" is verifiable for their purposes, Wikipedia has higher standards. Please look at WP:RS. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, it's also discussed as being called "Money Shot". Lots of people in that thread all relating their experience of it. Now if I recall AfD procedural rules, it's time for someone to tell me "ooOOooh that's not a reliable source!" — coelacan talk — 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is being mentioned on FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website. (I'm surprised that exists) — coelacan talk — 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More. — coelacan talk — 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
picture of it being played, discussion, video and discussion, discussion through this thread, picture and discussion, discussion based on "the game" website but lots of people chime in with their accounts. All of these sorts of things should count, although I'm aware that someone will say they don't. All of our own personal experiences should count too. In the case of modern folklore and childhood games, perhaps a different verifiability standard is in order. In any case the "Malcolm in the Middle" citation will undoubtedly seal it this time, but it's crazy that something this well-known could get AfD'd in the future. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm considering only the sources and information in the article. The external links do not comply with WP:RS - as a rule, blogs don't - and I'm sure that just about every Wikipedia editor know of another meaning of "money shot." B.Wind 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you overlook FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website? The game is being referenced in a popular TV show there, or at least within the "world" of the show. What's wrong with that source? — coelacan talk — 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not - the "journal" is actually a blog, not generally considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. Oh, one other thing: you do realize that Malcolm in the Middle was fiction? B.Wind at 147.70.244.102 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (can't log in on work computer).[reply]
It's a fake journal, created as supplemental material for the show. It's part of the story's canon, and so it counts the same as a mention on the TV show itself would count. The fact that Malcolm in the Middle is fiction means nothing here. So what if the game is referenced in fiction? Stephen Hawking is referenced in fiction all the time, and those mentions are encyclopedic; they go to Stephen Hawking in popular culture. — coelacan talk — 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are a little off target. WP is never an acceptable source, there are no exceptions allowed. This is all spelled out in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. L0b0t 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has little to no encyclopedic value, it is not written in a global perspective, it is mostly not verifiable, and it is poorly sourced. I also doubt that it's uniformly known throughout the United States.UberCryxic 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you making any actual argument that it's got no encyclopedic value. "Not written in a global perspective" is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for article improvement. I just gave sources, one of them (FOX) that can't be called unverifiable. And I doubt that Czech bluegrass is known uniformly in the US but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. — coelacan talk — 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need to be in school for it to be Made up in school. To help our friends Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. per the Afd page.

As for the Malcom reference, while I agree it could be concidered source, the Blog would not. Also, this 'game's article needs to have multiple, reliable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited for it to pass the AFD. I also want to remind people, one newspaper article or one TV Show appearance does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or punching game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day This still fails WP:V since there is only one reliable (and I use that term VERY VERY loosely) source, this does not pass WP:V. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is np newspaper mentioning this 'game', and only one un-remarkable appearance in an American TV sitcom. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability.

All we have is a TV show, and a Blog (which blogs are not acceptable by wikipedia standards as Reliable 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.
Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Where are the primary sources beyond MitM?

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.

I can't see that this is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, even with specialist knowledge.

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

And...

..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article..."

I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.

HERE IS THE KICKER

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. 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, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This game is certainly notable enough, but I don't think the current sources are adequate for WP:V. On the other hand, given its popularity I wouldn't be surprised if someone reputable has done a piece on the game at some point; if such a reference is found I'd surely vote keep (and cleanup). The fact that the game doesn't seem to have a standard name makes finding references difficult, unfortunately. — brighterorange (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: another verifiable television instance: season 1 episode 9 of WWE Tough Enough. Documented here, not a blog. By the way, nice essay there Brian, but don't be premature in declaring the debate over. I dispute that the MitM journal thing is a blog. It's fictional supplemental material; pieces from a "journal" by one of the characters of a show would have been included in fan club magazines before the rise of the web. And exact same content in the exact same format would not have been considered a blog eight years ago. But even without the journal, the scene happened on the show in season 2 episode 6. Now we have two television sources. That's "multiple" which is the word I see in all the notability guidelines. But! It's time to get deadly serious here, people! If we delete this article, then thousands of kids, upon entering their first year of junior high or middle school, are going to have no source for the rules except by learning them the hard way. You don't want little kids to get punched, do you?? Thnk about it, closing admin, thousands, maybe millions of punches can be spared to little kids if only you make the right choice today. Okay, now the debate's over. Seriously. — coelacan talk — 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hark, the snow is falling - despite the diatribe, still nothing from a reliable source regarding the so-called game. The fact that it "appeared" in an episode of a fictional television series does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia any more than cranko (a fictitious game introduced in the series MASH). Without any reliable sources that ties it into something that existed before the Malcolm in the Middle episode was even written, the argument that you've been pusuing for so long doesn't even exist. Good luck on finding such an objective "reliable source," preferably one having nothing to do with fiction.B.Wind 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's like people don't read. Right above you. WWE Tough Enough, in the training room, season 1, episode 9. — coelacan talk — 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a blog, too. not a reliable source. B.Wind 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. — coelacan talk — 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree it isn't a reliable source. Kidding aside, even a blog such as the one posted at Sci-Fi.com from Roger Moore, creator of Battlestar Galactica, is not concidered a 'reliable source'. --Brian (How am I doing?) 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blog. And it's part of the MitM canon, so it's on the same level as the show. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional program, that is. Time for an admin to put this puppy to bed. B.Wind 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the notability requirements that requires that every source be nonfiction. If a fictional show is referencing a real-life game, there's nothing wrong with us noting this reference. In fact it would make a good subsection of the article, "The circle hand game in fiction". There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a reference, you'll see that sort of thing all over Wikipedia. And you're still ignoring the WWE Tough Enough instance, which is a second reference on television. — coelacan talk — 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_hand_game_(Second_nomination)&oldid=1137716172"