Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color or Country

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Color or Country[edit]

Idiosyncratic nontopic, no substantial info. Syrthiss 15:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a joke page. -D. Wu 16:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a joke. -- BD2412 talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with its cousin Rock Scissors as well. Allegrorondo 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn joke, something they made up at camp, presumably. --Etacar11 17:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
  • I laughed. BJAODN, please. --Several Times 17:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's more widespread than the article made it out to be. It's known (and played) in at least one other summer math program and several high schools, and has been around for several years. This article would not have been abandoned - I for one was planning to make additions to the page, which in my opinion would have made it less of a nontopic without substantial information. Sho 22:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Color or Country is a game I have known for two years, and I assume that it has been around for several years before that. Its lack of a clear way to force someone to lose makes it as much a joke as an argument about politics. It is sufficiently widespread for me to have met several people who have already heard of it, and it is certainly not just limited to Canada/USA MathCamp. Yasha 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly retarded and unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen people playing the game. That's verification. Factitious 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've seen bigfoot. That's verification that bigfoot exists. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you had actually seen Bigfoot, yes. I think we can trust that the multiple Wikipedians on this page who have direct experience with the game are not malicious liars. Factitious 01:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Something just occurred to me. I posted a description of the game as I remember it without having read the article, and it then turned out that I had correctly identified it. So even if you aren't willing to trust me to be honest on principle, it can be demonstrated that I wasn't lying about it being an actual game. Factitious 01:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like somebody already deleted the article out of process. If it described a game in which players take turns naming colors, and lose if they name a country, then it's a real thing, and we should keep it. I learned about the game three years ago, and have played it with several groups of people. In any case, the article should be undeleted immediately, so that we can deal with it properly. Factitious 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is the game that was described. Sho Uemura 01:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about a real game, popular enough that I have met people playing it on different continents. It is not a joke any more than an article about chess is a joke. ThanksForTheFish 01:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unable to tell. This page needs to be undeleted (after being incorrectly speedied) before it can be deleted through normal channels. Telso 02:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. With major rewrite (by me, but still), article now contains much more information, presented in a much more organized and coherent manner. Although the notability test may fail on google (even with hits at everything2 and mathcamp), this does not necessarily imply lack of notability, as other users have shown. Telso 08:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything2 is sort of half-blog, half-wiki. Anyone can create any article with any phrase as a topic, including May I suggest not getting married in West Virginia? and The British get freaked out by American nonchalance regarding capital punishment. So the existence of an Everything2 article on a topic doesn't imply notability in any meaningful way. And of course Mathcamp.org knows about it if they invented it. However, the rest of the world does not seem to have taken any note of this game. -- Curps 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you've now shown Color or Country fails the notability test on Google. But I admitted that. The point is that just because something doesn't exist on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Google is NOT a deity). A number of Wikipedians from a number of different regions and schools in North America have heard of this game, and this is just the Wikipedians who noticed the article on VfD. With all the ones who missed it and all the non-Wikipedians who've heard of it, I think this easily implies passing the notability test (which isn't policy anyway). In fact, neither is the importance test (which it probably passes as well). The only policies that apply are verifibility, which this passes considering how many people agree this is verifiable, and no original research, which this is not, again because many users agree this isn't isolated. Do I really need to search for less verifiable things on Wikipedia to handwaive my point, just like you did when you searched for inane things on everything2 to handwaive your (and my!) point? I may be a deletionist at heart, but this constant nitpicking is reminding me why I stopped watching VfD. Telso 18:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. There are a bunch of people voting on this page, some of whom never went to mathcamp, who have heard of this game. I learned for this game back when I was in college at MIT six years ago. I didn't know what Mathcamp was and I didn't know anyone who had gone to Mathcamp. So it certaintly isn't a phenomenon restricted to Mathcamp. Do you seriously think we are all high school students enjoying our little joke? You seem to be attacking this with a vehemence usually reserved for pranksters and vandals. Cmouse 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't think you guys are pranksters, and if the page is kept I'll just shrug. But it really bothers me that there seem to be substantially zero webpages about it (and by contrast the equally silly game Mornington Crescent has nearly a thousand Google hits). People create webpages about almost anything at the drop of a hat... I've researched my share of highly obscure topics. It's all the more anomalous because it's a geek/nerd type topic, which are normally heavily over-represented on the Internet (a million pages for the Star Wars kid and only a handful on, say, ancient Persian poetry). It's a mystery I'd really like to clear up. -- Curps 19:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mornington Crescent is connected to a popular radio show. There are no pages dedicated to Mornington Crescent; all or most of the pages found by searching for Mornington Crescent are pages about the radio show, with Mornington Crescent a subtopic. Color or Country doesn't get on the Internet as much because it doesn't have that connection. Also, most people learn Color or Country by word-of-mouth, and so it tends to spread within groups that have ways to communicate other than web sites. Sho Uemura 23:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I too have met several people who know of this game, none of whom have ties to Canada/USA MathCamp, proving that it is not limited to that camp. This page should not be deleted. Myq 05:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. (I saw the article earlier before it was speedied.) android79 04:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sounds just a little too absurd: a game that neither side can lose except on purpose. Who plays this and why? How about a game where you have to say a word, any word, and as long as you don't say the word "Wikipedia" nobody ever loses. Why on Earth would you play such a game? Is it a test of endurance, just to see who gives up first? Some major detail seems to be missing here. Or is the article just written badly and fails to explain properly? -- Curps 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way people lose is generally by getting carried away, for example starting naming continents, whereupon someone says "Australia" and loses. platypeanArchcow 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Europe and Asia and North America are considered to be colors? Do people play this game sober? -- Curps 06:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC
        • Usually, yes. Sleep deprivation works sufficiently well. platypeanArchcow 06:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It gets zero (or one) Google hits. Several users here are saying they've heard of it, yet the most common test for noteworthiness comes up empty. See my comment below for the Google search link. -- Curps 06:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've verified its existence, yet the most common test for noteworthiness fails us. Hmm, what could that mean? Perhaps we shouldn't be relying solely on a popular search engine? Wow, what a shock! Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I once saw somebody accidentally lose the game by saying "Spain." He was mocked thoroughly. Also, note that saying things that aren't colors or countries is allowed, so saying "Europe" has no effect on the status of the game. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you ever argued over politics? Neither side can lose except on purpose. Why on Earth would you do such a thing? Is it a test of endurance, just to see who gives up first? The reason Color or Country is called a game is because it is for fun, not because it is some measure of skill. As a conventional game, Color or Country sounds rather silly: you can say "blue" each turn and not lose. However, one should not judge Color or Country as a game, but judge it is a phenomenon, a pastime, or an odd form of conversation. The fact that Curps asks why people would play this game, and the fact that many people do play it, should make it an interesting enough phenomenon to keep as an article. Yasha 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it was submitted to VFD was rather garbagey, but I removed most of the Mathcamp-specific stuff and cleaned up the wording. As long as the article doesn't imply that Mathcamp is the only venue for the game (which I thought it was before this debate surfaced) it is a fine little stub. platypeanArchcow 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a joke. I've run into it in three seperate places at this point - one of which was MIT. I've heard of this game years before I had heard of mathcamp. Cmouse 06:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at first, "color or country" seems unGooglable because it brings up a lot of human rights type pages. But if you do a Google search excluding pages with the words "race", "gender", "creed", "skin", you get about 69 hits, NONE of which are about this game! (Well maybe one reference in passing, in a cached version of an online forum: [1]) Even if this is for real, it simply isn't notable. At all. -- Curps 06:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google doesn't appear to return all of the hits for this game. Here's one that Google doesn't find - [2] - and I'm sure there are many more. Thanks for the fish! 16:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more: [3] Sho Uemura 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [4] The first five hits concern the game Colour or Country. Looking through the other results, one can see a few relating to the game. True patent nonsense is saying that there are no Google hits for the game. Yasha 19:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First five? How do you count five? I see only two relevant sites when I click on your Google query link: a couple of pages from mathcamp.org (which use the Canadian spelling "colour", so they were missed by the Google query I posted), plus the cached chiefdelphi.com/forums link I already posted. -- Curps 21:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...the results seem to have changed slightly. Linking to a Google page was a mistake on my part. Sorry. Anyways, the point is that there are several pages relating to the game high up on the list of hits, and I think that still stands. Yasha 18:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The now-defunct MOP Literature Page has documentation of it going back to 1997 (link at archive.org. One reason why it may be hard to google is that, being a folk game, there may not be a universally accepted name. ("Color Country Game" gets four hits in a google search, although all of them are associated with the Mathematical Olympiad Program, which I don't think has yet been mentioned as one of the number of math camps that foster this game. 69.204.162.12 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the main argument for deletion is that the game is stupid. It is openly acknowledged that the game is stupid, and this has nothing to do with the worthiness of the article. Wikipedia has an extensive article on Mornington Crescent, which is essentially the inverse of this game. RSpeer 06:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • A Google search for "Mornington Crescent" + "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" gets 960 hits. Arguably, no matter how silly the game, there is a noteworthy social phenomenon associated with the "Mornington Crescent" game... at least noteworthy enough that people have bothered to make webpages about it. "Color or country" doesn't have any comparable noteworthiness: it gets zero Google hits. -- Curps 06:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC) / 18:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because you excluded too many pages. Thanks for the fish! 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very unlikely. The excluded pages were all human rights type pages ("without regard to race, creed, color, or country of origin") which would not mention the game. If you dispute this result, you need to suggest a different Google query and post a link and results for it. -- Curps 18:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your claim was that it is not notable because of the Google search that you posted. Several examples have already proved that your Google query doesn't find all or most of the results, so the game must be given the benefit of the doubt unless you have other proof that all of us are lying about it. Thanks for the fish! 17:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is true of any Google query (Google doesn't find all the results)... Google doesn't index every single web page in existence. Nevertheless it is a useful test of relative notability (compared to other queries, since all queries will be affected). -- Curps 14:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • My point is that you don't weed out "race", "creed", etc. from other queries, making your Google query worthless. Thanks for the fish! 16:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • You don't actually believe what you just wrote, which means you are not arguing in good faith. -- Curps 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is not notable enough of it's own entry. It could probably be consolidated into another entry. Zoop 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as? It doesn't have any direct connections to any specific games or groups. Sho Uemura 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -Splash 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsubstantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:49, 13 August 2005
    • There are many comments here substantiating it. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while it may exist, there's no verifiable evidence it's played by any more people than the Glengarry Glen Ross drinking game I invented. -21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC) This vote was by User:R. fiend ([5]) -- Curps 19:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • that's a good point. If you add a page for your drinking game and get 8 or 9 of your friends to come on the vfd page vouching for it, it would meet the standard that we're currently setting here. This of course begs the eternal question "how do we define notable?" If your drinking game became popular in your apartment building and 75 people played it, does that make it a "social phenomenon?" I am not a proponent of the google test mostly because of the insanely high false positive rate, but if something scores a big zilch, that's really saying something. Apollo58 23:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What we have here is a bit different from "8 or 9 friends." We have various people who don't know each other, but who have independently participated in the game, in a variety of unrelated locations. As I've said before, we have verified the existence of this game. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How many people play that? I've personally seen about thirty people play this game, though not at the same time. Please sign your votes, by the way. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I've never actually participated in a game, I've heard it referenced by multiple unrelated social groups in real life. The fact that it is arguably an incredibly dumb game does not make it any less a real social phenomenon. --Ambyr 22:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I have scoured my address book for geeky friends who went to math camps around the country, as well as asked numerous acquaintances at MIT, and no one reports ever hearing of the game. I would argue that it is known only to a very, very small and insular social circle and probably treated as a joke even there, and hardly qualifies as a "social phenomenon." I played a bizarre card game in summer camp that some of my friends made up that was quite popular and if you looked really hard you could probably find 100 people with a dim recollection of it, but that doesn't make it a social phenomenon.Apollo58 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a duplicate vote. RSpeer 04:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nope, it wasn't. I have edited the original confusing layout earlier in the page to make this clearer. -- Curps 19:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know most of the people here who know Color or Country (e.g. some are ten years older than me). That would seem to show that it's not restricted to an insular social circle. Scattered, yes, but scatteredness is not a reason for deletion in the way that insularity is. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I first encountered this game at the PROMYS program, and later at my high school, and later at several other programs. Arguments that the game is stupid are irrelevant, since the discussion regards the worthiness of the article, not of the game. The fact that people would play such a game at all is fairly surprising and interesting information. While this game is confined to a small culture, this culture consists of much more than Mathcampers. It tends to spread through various programs such as Mathcamp, CTY, Ross, PROMYS, MOSP, the U.S. Physics Team training camp, Clay Research Academy, and many others. However, it is not confined to those programs. It is fairly well known to nerds in many high schools who did not go to any of these programs. MathNerd 03:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At least something useful is coming from this VfD. I imagine that whoever originally posted the article, along with Rock Scissors which pretty much is non-notable, thought it was an isolated Mathcamp phenomenon. As a result of this discussion, various people have realized that their social group did not invent Colour or Country, and a lot of the history of a difficult-to-trace phenomenon has been traced. I guess VfD does generate some light along with its heat every once in a while. RSpeer 04:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mornington Crescent - er - Keep. David | Talk 19:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wish people would stop with the 'no google no keep' argument, would make Bob Marley cry. As for the game itself, seems another varient on the confuse-people-who-don't-know-the-rules sort a la Scissors rather than a competitive sport. --zippedmartin 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that there are no secret rules to this: new players are told that you can name any color, you can repeat colors, etc. It's a competitive sport in the sense that some people consistently win (and for some reason, take pride in doing so). Thanks for the fish! 20:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't the point that even when you tell them, it's still confusing? I dunno, I'm confused. --zippedmartin 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe for some people. I play because I enjoy the game in and of itself. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On second thought, merging all the 'stupid games' into one article and redirecting might be satisfactory to everyone. MathNerd 00:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't look forward to seeing arguments about which games are stupid, though. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. A new type of vandalism: kids moving their least favorite trading card games into the stupid games article. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - I want to further differentiate this from Mao and Mornington Crescent, because in those games you can actually win. This game has no purpose other than to confuse newcomers, which is fine, but then it doesn't move beyond that. One can only lose, and if the newcomer isn't an idiot s/he will probably not lose. In mornington crescent, a quick newcomer can win in one move and the game ends. If the newcomer here passes the test, the game immediately becomes unfunny. Not that this has bearing on delete/keep, just saying.
    • Another difference is that Mao and Mornington Crescent have hidden rules. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Game might be a better comparison than those two, altho it isn't quite the same. But it appears to have similar difficulties with winning/losing, and doesn't have hidden rules. --Mairi 05:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claim that nobody wins the game when no newcomers are involved is untrue, as shown by actual gameplay. Please sign your comments, by the way. RSpeer 05:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Explain how one wins this game. -Apollo58 00:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blind, stupid persistence. Of course, you've got to be imaginative as well or the spectators boo you. I've played and won 4-hour games, but I've also had much shorter games with experienced players. There's an art to losing, and usually a player will lose just for fun. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  Grue  13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kine 05:21, 22 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Color_or_Country&oldid=1081087603"