Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushgi

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. The principal problem with this article is that nobody has cited, either in the article or in this AfD, a reliable published source (in any language) that even proves that such a game exists. [1] is a self-published source, hence unreliable, and at any rate only gives the name of the game. [2] is a dead link, but appears to be a blog and hence also unreliable. This means that the article fails not only WP:N, but also WP:V, a much more important core policy. I am therefore forced to agree with the plurality of "delete"/"redirect" comments. The article may be redirected by any editor to an appropriate target, and I will userfy the content on request for improvement. It may be resubmitted if adequate coverage in reliable sources is found.  Sandstein  05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mushgi

Mushgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Should have been deleted via speedy twice. No context, made up, hoax article. 2005 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I can't say with any certainty that it is a hoax. I couldn't find anything to verify its existence however. I see 2005's removal of the reference to this game at Culture of Mongolia has been undone, which should be removed again unless some sort of evidence can be found of this game.  JUJUTACULAR  04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up I took a look at the source, and this does not seem like enough to substantiate a separate article. I'm okay with the mention of it in Culture of Mongolia.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  01:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I removed it again. A single youtube video about some drunks in Kentucky has nothing do with Mongolia, or anything else for that matter. The hoax aspect is irrelevant since there is no evidence this exists. 2005 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Despite what you might think, there are things on this planet that even Google has yet to learn about. To be fair, I'm actually quite surprised about the lack of online material here. I have played this game myself with some Mongolian friends, so I'm pretty sure that it isn't a hoax. What I've found as reference so far is one mention in Mongolian (and an English explanation on the same site). That should at least make it clear that the game exists, and we can now search for more detailed information to build the article. Both speedies were correctly rejected, because the article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. And for future reference, If you ever again stumble over a Mongolia related topic that you're uncertain about, then this is the place to ask. --Latebird (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One reference on one site copied directly from here does not mean something exists! The only mention online not copied from from here is a youtube video of drunks having nothing to do with cards. Regardless of that and the fact the "article" is a few no context words though, there are absolutely zero online references for the game so it clearly must be deleted since it is completely unverifiable and unnotable. 2005 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • The assumption that a source mentioning the game in Mongolian would need to copy it's explanation from the English language Wikipedia is absurd. In fact, the wayback machine shows that this explanation has been there at least since Nov 2007, which makes it obvious that it is really the source for the article here. In case you're wondering: The Mongolian text talks about a person whipping out a deck of cards (хөзөр) and saying: "Let's play Mushgi". Besides that, the article is a valid stub giving all the context required. Taking all that in account, you have provided no valid reason for deletion. --Latebird (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There are no sources. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:V. There is no notability. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:N. The one nonsensical sentence has zero context (what kind of cards are used, what is the object of the game, are tricks taken or melds made or hands compared... etc). The "article" fails every criteria we have for articles. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • There now appears to be one source, the other issue you have are not reasons to delete, but requests to expand. Any more references are likely o be in Mongolian, Chinese or Russian, and so will not be easy to spot by English speakers. So I will request Keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Sources need to be reliable, and one, single mention of this online on a novelist's site about his novel obviously does not qualify as a reliable source. Also, you are very strangely mistaken in your notion that the other things are reasons to "expand". The one single non-reliable source is an exact copy of the short sentence in the article. There is no "expand" possible when the entire universe of knowledge about this game is already in the article! LOL. It can't even be categorized as a card game. How are the cards dealt in this game? Where was the game invented? How fo you win? What is the object of the game? Are "cards" made of glass or oldsmobiles? Does whever shoots the other playesr first win? This is wikinonsense. There is zero evidence there is a card game of this name on Earth, while their is definitive evidence there is not a notable card game of this name. 2005 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you tell that the given source is unreliable? Because you can't read Mongolian yourself? That only invalidates your judgement, but not the source. In fact, the author Radigan Neuhalfen is not a "novelist" but an anthropologist who has studied under Jack Weatherford, one of the most prominent authors in Mongolian studies. Researchers like that don't just invent information about native games.

It is also incorrect (and bordering on bad faith) to claim that the one link we currently have is "the entire universe of knowledge" about a topic. If you could show that the topic was impossible to verify, then your argument would be valid. But topics with a reasonable chance of verification are generally not deleted from Wikipedia. The other nonsense that you just made up also gives a strong indication that your real motivation is more based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than rational consideration. --Latebird (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop it please. Just because you WP:ILIKEIT is no argument for keeping this. Articles must be verifiable about notable subjects. I've already pointed out, and you keep ignoring, that there is nothing online about this topic, other than one no context sentence and one completely different youtube video. It is not verifiable (the burden of which is on you to show), so stop pretending you can't click the link to see that. And to claim it is notable is ridiculous since you can't even answer how this alleged game is supposed to be played, how do you deal it, how do you win, etc. So please don't belabor this anymore. Others have suggested redirecting it to the Culture article, where it could be (weakly) refed with the Neuhalfen link. 2005 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. The goal of Wikipedia is not to contain absolutely everything that might be true. Bhimaji (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per others. As 2005 points out, a single source from a single site doesn't qualify a topic for inclusion. Rray (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect. As the others pointed out, a brief mention in a single source is not enough to justify a separate article. On the other hand, if the source is an anthropologist with expertise in Mongolia, the game likely exists even though materials about it may be hard to find. Redirect to Culture of Mongolia, where a recent version already says "One of the actual popular card games that is played is Mushgi" but without a source. Merge the citation there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect The article is verifiable (a glossary made by an author with a scientific background related to the topic in question is a trustworthy source), but it has not been shown that it is notable enough to merit an article of its own, and I don't see any way to show it. Integrate the info into Culture of Mongolia or write an article on Games of Mongolia. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- Drastically fails standards for multiple, independent reliable sources giving more than non-trivial coverage. No reason for a redirect as the existence of the game cannot be verified. Our standard here isn't truth but first verifiability and then notability. We lose nothing by removing this obscure game even if it turns out to be true. At best it's just an uninteresting piece of trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the game is confirmed by an expert SPS. That's nowhere near enough to base an entire article on, but it is enough to source a sentence in an existing article. Redirect is the proper outcome when a source exists but not enough notability for a standalone article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment If the article was to be retained, it would probably have to be renamed. It is no great wonder why you couldn't google "мушги" - it's because it's "муушги". Here's some evidence:

Юм л бол муушги, покер тоглоно гээд л суудаг болсон байсан биз?

халтар хөзрөөр “муушги”-дах үед Алтансүх өвгөн нэг их чухал царайлан хөмхийгөө зуун, хөзрөө ширтэж сууснаа ингэж хэлсэн юм.

Тэр өдөр чинь Конфи мэтийн архаг 5-н гар стадион тойрч суугаад хоорондоо муушги мушгиж, 5-н элэг 5-н ходоод нэгдэн 8-н ширхэг 40-н хэмийн Чингистэй байлдаад

All in all, we have 5 separate google hits for “муушги” and only the one already mentioned for “мушги”. Our scientist, if an Englishman, might have mistaken a long vowel for a short one. Furthermore, as exemplified by the third example, the word "мушгих" is slang for "play cards", making this confusion much more likely. Finding evidence for Mongolian card games is very difficult. I looked up Mongolian games in a South Mongolian lexicon on Mongolian customs, and of over 400 pages devoted to this topic, there were merely 1,5 pages devoted to card games. This is due, as the lexicon implicates, not to the limited success that card games have had in Mongolian society, but due to the fact that they are a recent, imported phenomenon. That is, imported as a generic class of games. Two card games are described there, but not even Hözör which is probably the most popular one, so it is no wonder that muushgi is missing. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If the number of google hits is any indication, then the correct spelling is actually муушиг/muushig. --Latebird (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course it is! (It was negligent of me not to try this spelling.) And, this google search gives a somewhat different perspective on the matter in question. Wanna download muushig?

http://hinews.blog.banjig.net/post.php?post_id=235528

Here’s a metaphorical use within a political commentary which indicates that the writer expected every or at least most potential readers of his text to know this word:

2004 оны сонгуульд АН хүүхдийн 100000 төгрөг амлаж ард түмнийг хошгоруулж эхэлсэн. Хувьсгалт нам энэ бооцоог тав дахин өсгөж залуу гэр бүлд 500000 төгрөг амлан муушиг тоглож эхэлсэн. http://publish.news.mn/show/id=334

Statistically, muushig seems to have a good chance to be mentioned together with poker, hözör and daaluu. Finally, that’s fun. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I decided to be bold and perform the merge and redirect, if that's cool. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All Mongols know this game because it is widely spread here. Why do you, folks who are not Mongols, want to delete this game without any knowledge of the game? The correct spelling of the game is "муушиг". The article should be retained. GenuineMongol (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks who are not Mongols need articles to spell the name correctly(!!), require notability, and some explanation of the game or rules! Please curb the belittling comments since obviously deletion is appropriate under those circumstances. Now that you added something more than five words to the article, it could be redirected to the proper URL, and judged on the merits of the one Mongolian reference that you added. 2005 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Something more than five words? How arrogant you are! No appreciation for contribution? You obviously did some contributions to card game articles. Sheephead has the single reference, but still exists and you contribute to it. What's wrong with Mushgi? I have added most of the rules of the game to the article and categorized the article more precisely. The article should be kept. GenuineMongol (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrogant??? The entire article was Mushgi is a Mongolian card game for five or more players. Okay, that is eleven words, not five, but please stop the wikinonsense. Your comments don't help anything. Once again, the previous article obviously should have been deleted. Now that an actual article has been created, it should be moved to the properly spelled URL, Muushig. Now please, refrain from the condescending and frankly strange comments. What is in the article space now is completely different than what is there before, but it is still on the wrong URL. 2005 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article to Muushig within my possibilities. Hopefully, an administrator would take care of the redirect issue. GenuineMongol (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I did, but in the future, don't "move" an article by cutting and pasting its contents. See Help:Moving a page. Melchoir (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice of the change in the Wikipedia rules, so I thought that the beta view hid the move function somewhere I don't know. Anyway, thanks again. GenuineMongol (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

no worries Melchoir (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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.