Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Reality Game

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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Reality Game[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, probably original research and reads entirely like something someone just made up themselves one day. Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alternatively, redirect to Alternate reality game, since the ghits suggest someone is desperately trying to introduce the term. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the first sentence of the article defines it as "A Social Reality Game (SRG) is a game where people or groups of people compete in games of skill in real life." Google doesn't indicate it's a real term, and the article itself doesn't actually identify it as anything more than a Game. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per comments above. Renee (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research, can't find anything on this. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and the above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google turns up some 2700 hits, the first 20 of which all seem to refer to this concept. Further, there seems to be one reliable source behind a pay wall at USA today. I found a number of on-line blog-ish things referring to the same show.... Concept seems to meet WP:V, but WP:N is unclear. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCRABBLE. It's a new phenomenon as the author describes on the talk page. It may evolve into something notable, but it isn't at the moment. Gazimoff (talk) 17:33, 17 April 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.