Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red letter

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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red letter[edit]

No indication of notability. Personal though unfounded suspicion that this is a hoax anyway. Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My suspicion that this is a hoax is heightened by the appearance of the word 'notable' in the first sentence. That's generally a bad sign. (Has someone already coined that as a 'law'?) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if it's true, it's far from notable. ~~SIS~~ 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just googled for "Red letter" game and found half a million hits, with the first page being descriptions of the same content (I didn't check all 500k hits). I suspect that the game is notable enough, and the problem is simply that the article is very poor quality. That can be fixed. I am adding some citations. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- just added a link to the BBC where they explain how it is exactly what the article says it is, and has all the rules. I'm pretty sure this will pass notability by itself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that a joke? Seriously, the article you referenced says nothing about teams, nothing about hiding, nothing about counting out a minute, nothing about looking for anybody, and nothing about fighting. It's a completely different game. On another note, the figure of a half-million hits is meaningless: your search returned every page that has "red letter" somewhere on it and also "game" somewhere on it. Just from scanning the top hits it was clear that a large proportion of the hits include pages with the expression "red-letter day" and extensions thereof. A search on <"red letter game"> returns 71 hits; a search on <"red letter * game"> ("red letter" followed closely but not immediately by "game") returns 55 more. Looking through several dozen of those hits, I still find none that have any relationship to what's described in the article; most of them use "red letter game" as a play on "red-letter day". —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment So the article needs work in accuracy. The game exists, and the BBC wrote an article explaining it. My goal wasn't to rewrite the article, it was to see if it was notable, and if so, cite it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it definetly needs to be tagged for a lack of references.--Koji Dude ^(C) 23:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a description of something utterly different. In the event that someone should chose to write about the actual game described by the BBC, fair enough, but there's not a shred of fact in the article as it stands. MadScot (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you delete something for inaccuracy if it is cited? You tag it, or stub it, but there is no criteria to delete an article that is cited because a section is inaccurate. My guess is there are many varients of the game, just as there are darts, hopscotch, jacks and other games. I have no idea, never heard of the game, but it took me 2 whole seconds to find a BBC reference. Wanting to delete because of inaccuracies is simply off policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone creates an article on, say, "historic churches of montreal", and procedes to then write an article on gay strip bars in the same city (or even a different city of the same name), I think it'd be as well to wipe the slate clean. Yes, the title could have an article written. But if you remove the nonsense there will be a blank page left, and to what end? MadScot (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apples/Oranges. This article just has a different type of rules. It may very well be that BOTH are valid rules for the game, as I pointed out above if you read. Either way, the "different" rules are similar enough that it is obvious that they are talking about the same game with different rules. Wikipedia policy does NOT say that a delete is the right way to handle this situation. This is what TAGS are for. Citations were so easy to find, it should have never gone to AFD to begin with. It should have been tagged. So far, we have all written more words that it would take to simply modify the article to say there may be more than one set of rules, and quote the BBC set of rules. Again, it exists, it is notable, it is cited. Why we are arguing to delete is pretty silly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is described in the article DOES NOT EXIST. It shares a title with someone that exists. I could describe a game called "Hopscotch" which involved ripping off people's arms and beating them unconscious. The fact that my hallucination shares a name with a real game doesn't make it any less WP:BOLLOCKS. This nonsense article describes a purported game for primary school children that often leads to hospitalisation. WHAT???? A hoax is a hoax even if it uses a real name.MadScot (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fact that a title given to an article has a real meaning that someone could write an article about is not justification for keeping an article that was created badly through and through on the grounds that someone, some day might write good content for it. If someone comes along who wants to write that good article, he'll create it himself. It isn't as though keeping this article around just because it's already there gives that future writer any advantage. And if anyone thinks it would be a good article for someone to write, WP:Requests for creation serves that purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThose of you that keep screaming "IT DOESN'T EXIST" might actually try looking at the article. I have found several different versions of the game that are similar, and added links to it. If you would quite screaming and try to actually LOOK for it, you would see it isn't that hard to find many references to RED LETTER, even if many people play a similar game with different rules. Again, rather than sit and bitch, I went and easily found some references, which is supposed to be what all editors do when discussing an AFD... PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And just out of curiousity, did even one of those references describe a game leading to hospitalisation and "beating the shit out of" small children? Or did they all describe subtle variations on the BBC game, the title of which the hoaxer no doubt ripped off while making up this article. MadScot (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article doesn't say that, when the new sources were added, the junk was deleted. Again, it took less effort to fix than all the hissy fits going on in this afd. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look, and I told you I looked, and I told you the result, so kindly don't be a smart aleck. And the original article did thoroughly deserve to be deleted. If you decided to create a whole different article about a different subject that happens to have the same title and that merits inclusion in Wikipedia, there's nothing at all wrong with it and it is one way to deal with an article that would otherwise beg to be expunged, but please don't imagine that you've demonstrated that it was a mistake to call for the deletion of the article as it was. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, granted, the nom was valid, and I shouldn't have made the comment on the nom. I do owe an appology for that. However, the article has fundamentally changed to a valid article. I knew exactly zero about the subject matter (I'm an american, not familiar with UK games) but it wasn't that hard to fix. My frustration comes when it takes less effort to fix an article than to debate, assuming (as in this case) that the actually subject title is a valid topic for an article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weak keep now. I've come across other articles where there was some indication, or I had some knowledge that told me, that something real could be made out of what was there, and in some cases I've taken care of it. I didn't perceive this to be that kind of case. You were the one with initiative this time. Wikipedia is a cooperative venture. I think, though, that you needed to paraphrase the material you found rather than quoting so extensively. I'm not in a position to judge the notability, but I see no need to delete right now. —Largo Plazo (talk)
Keep Article has been fundamentally rewritten since AfD began, rendering nominator's original reasons moot. gnfnrf (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The alleged BBC article is actually a page from h2g2, a user-created online encylopedia hosted by the BBC, but with a more humorous tone and lower verification standards than Wikipedia. Attirbuting the article to the BBC is misdirection; h2g2 is not a reliable source. I'd want to see a reference from some standard work on the subject, such as Opie's The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren, to be persuaded that this isn't just a hoax or urban legend. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Google searching for ("red letter" game) yields hundreds of thousands of hits that, except for the "BBC" link mentioned above, are all random confluences of the phrase "red letter" and "game". "Red letter game" yields fewer than 1,000 hits, and the first couple of pages were not about a game such as this. In articles about folklore and children's games, a certain informality of sources can be tolerated. So can variations of the rules. But the wiki-style user created content on the BBC site seems to be the only mention of a game such as is described in the article. Suggest redirect to red letter edition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Try searches like "'red letter' playground" or "'red letter' schoolyard" and you'll see plenty of references to this game, though not many from reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The first couple of pages of results from "red letter" + playground yielded possibly three relevant results ([1][2][3]) coupled, as usual, with dozens of instances of irrelevant combinations of the phrase "red letter" with the word "playground". "Schoolyard" yielded one more. ([4]) "Red letter" (day) is a fairly common phrase, and as such any search engine strategy is probably doomed. I am convinced that this is, at minimum, not a hoax. Again, for folklore subjects I think some leeway should be given, since "reliability" is a relative thing, and we're not dealing with urgent matters of political controversy; but none of the pages so found seem to come close to more conventional standards. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure I recall games with similar 'mechanics' as a child (that is, the non-hospital-visit-inducing mechanics), so in that sense I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax. What, if any, name the game went by, though, is lost in the dusty recesses of my brain. MadScot (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that nominator now says "weak keep" after many modifications to the article. It is his option to withdraw the nomination now that the article has substantially changed and now appears to meet Wikipedia standards for an article. I don't expect it, but it is his option. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that virtually the entire article is now a copyright violation, I think it needs to be deleted anyway. To me, deleting it falls under the heading of "no harm done". —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be a bit thick in quotes, but it is not a copy vio in any way, the source is clearly stated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you sure about that? Citing the source doesn't avoid a copyright violation problem if more than fair use is made.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - While it likely needs to be modified, I didn't quote enough to prevent the copyright holder from profiting from their work, ie: it only covers one small section of the work and wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking the rest of the article because I had quoted enough to make such an action pointless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is that an adequate defense in UK copyright law? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we discuss the sources for this please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, sure. BBC is the British Broadcasting Corportation, which is kind of like CBS or NBC, only it's British. Sarah Jordan is a person who does workshops in Bristol-- not Tennessee or Virginia, but in England. And Heath Primary School is a school in Ireland. The website www.bbc.co.uk is as reliable as the BBC, so it would be a reliable source. Merely being mentioned on the BBC doesn't make something notable, but yes, the article has a reliable source. Hope that helps. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page on a website is not inherently reliable because of the webhost. The page in question is some user's contribution. Newspapers typically have pages with reader comments, opinion blogs, and so on that don't become reliable just because they're on a particular website. It's essential to distinguish between content published by the organization that owns the site and content published by outsiders. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, if you'd read my post further up, you'd see that I'd already mentioned that the BBC page cited is from h2g2, a project not unlike Wikipedia, but with lower verification standards and a penchant for the eccentric. It's not a reliable source. Please don't mislead other AfD participants by misattributing this content to the BBC itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm supposed to assume that www.bbc.co.uk isn't reliable because Alex Tiefling said so? Interesting. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've provided you with enough information to deduce the reliability of the source yourself. And please note that my comments do not apply to the BBC website as a whole, which represents a large compendium of sources of a wide variety of types and reliability, but only to h2g2. I wouldn't rate, say, the BBC News 'Have Your Say' forum as the same sort of source as the BBC News homepage, much less their history documentary pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on deletion or keeping, but if this is deleted it should be recreated as a redirect to Red letter edition. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, because that is only one use of the phrase "red letter". Could be a disambiguation page instead.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. h2g2, even if it's hosted by the BBC, does not count as reliable to me. Compare with the iReport (hosted by CNN), which recently announced Steve Jobs death. VG ☎ 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The How to guide page is not a reliable source - the BBC hosts it but does not have editorial responsibility. Without that, there really are not enough sources to show that this is a notable game.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from some copyvio'ed H2G2 stuff, there's nothing here worth keeping. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (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.