Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forum 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum game[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with an WP:ILIKEIT rationale. No sources found, doesn't seem verifiable outside forums themselves which are not reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Managing Online Forums and Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and the worst case is that we would merge into a wider topic like online game rather than delete per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only relevant use of the word "forum" in Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games appears to be on the use of forums to discuss games, not play them. Pages 237-239 of Managing Online Forums might be relevant but are a list of suggestions or "how-to" guide rather than a study of what actually exists, hence fails WP:SIGCOV "address the subject directly in detail". Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. It is clear those two sources do not cover it significantly despite what Warden says. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cusop Dingle acknowledges that there are several pages of discussion of the topic in Managing Online Forums. He tries to dismiss this on the grounds that this is how-to but that is an irrelevant argument because that's not a consideration of WP:SIGCOV. Textbooks commonly use a how-to style but that doesn't mean that they are poor sources; quite the contrary. The other source extends the topic to discuss games in social media in general. It indicates that forums and bulletin boards are early examples of these but covers the field more widely. This might be good direction to go as we don't seem to have any higher level articles about this burgeoning phenomenon yet. Warden (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy " is a recycled argument that Warden has used at least 100 times that provides no additional weight towards establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can only go by what reliable sources actually say. If the source is a how-to guide, as CW acknowledges here, then all we could write would be a how-to guide. But it is policy that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. SIGCOV calls for significant coverage of the topic, not for speculation or advice as to what it might be or how to do it. So, where is the significant coverage of this topic as it actually exists in the real world? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO is stylistic advice which indicates that we should not be including content such as exercises or functional checklists. This is quite irrelevant to the question of notability. The point is that managers of forums have paid attention to the topic of games played on their forums because affects the traffic and user experience. The matter has been noticed and so we're good. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not being noticed. It is the possibility of writing a verifiable article: if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not". So far the topic fails on both these criteria. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have adequate sourcing already to support some content. If the content remains small then we might merge up into an article such as online game or internet forum which could both use some help. Or we might keep the topic as a stub awaiting further growth. Either way, there is no case for deletion as this would be contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems necessary to keep reminding people of our editing policy which, as a policy, is superior to the notability guideline which, being a guideline, does not have such general acceptance. It is an essential and fundamental feature of this project that we accept work which is incomplete and far from perfect. We look to ordinary editing to rectify issues such as this. TPH commonly flouts WP:BEFORE by refusing to use ordinary editing to address weak articles such as this and so is in special need of such reminders. Warden (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this argument sway people in an AfD, it convinces no one, it is only in your eyes it is superior, in your world nothing gets deleted. so don't know why you recycle it especially when this AfD is heading to WP:SNOW delete. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Yes, people play games on forums. People play games at picnics too. But we wouldn't write an article about "picnic games". We'd merely expand the article on picnics. This is one of those instances where we're far better off expanding our other articles about internet forums. I might support a redirect if someone can find a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without sources, this looks like nothing more than a random collection of observations - and not even very good ones, if it includes Mornington Crescent, which is a 'game' only to the extent that it pretends to be one, while actually being something else entirely (and is a lot more interesting in consequence). If people are going to try to put original research onto Wikipedia, they should at least try to be original, and do a little research... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and looks like original research. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to keep this page if we could find some reliable sources. This is a relatively widely-used game type, so an article here seems appropriate. But, I agree we need far better sourcing, without which we would have to delete.JoelWhy (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2012 (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.