Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connect-A-Pedia


 * 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 per WP:BULLSHIT, article meets criteria for speedy deletion.--cj | talk 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Connect-A-Pedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:NFT, zero ghits, no notability asserted. Even if Connect-A-Pedia was really issued a patent, this does not assert notability. War wizard90 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I love this game!
 * Delete WP:NFT there should probably be a speedy delete category for games using Wikipedia. Why does everyone think they are the first to come up with a wiki game? --Daniel J. Leivick 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Save:First of all, this game was invented by me in the year 2002. I searched the web high and low to see if anybody else had thought of this prior to me, I found no entries on this. Recently the game has been gaining much momentum as a result of myspace.com and other networking sites. A page on Wikipedia, the site that started it all, is what I think could give it the boost it needs to become successful internationally. Also, it was given a patent 2 days ago which I filed for in 2003. I just didn't put it on Wikipedia untill I had the (assumed) security of a US Patent. -- User:D'Brickashaw 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - original creator confirms no notability. Fails WP:NOTE --Haemo 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Save: It does have notability, just not yet INTERNATIONAL notability, it is extremely popular and well known in the three Eastern states of Australia. D&#39;Brickashaw 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I will have to look up whether this game received a trademark or a patent (the article is ambiguous on this point), but my user page has a list of 18 other versions of this exact game which were created by other people. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * dum dum da dumb er that should be speedy delete Balloonman
 * Delete as non notable. Also, as far as I understand patent law, one can only be granted a patent for a physical object, or at least the idea of one. A patent can't be granted for actions, which this would fall under. The creator may mean they received a trademark, which is a completely different thing, and would only cover the name, not necessarily the game itself. Natalie 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Having done a little bit of research, this is not eligible for patent in the United States, as is claimed above. US patent law only covers "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". Before you ask, this does not appear to count as a process as I understand it. Natalie 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * -This page is no less important than famous military brats Balloonman.D&#39;Brickashaw 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS / WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / whatever the redirect is currently being called. --Action Jackson IV 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the ambiguity and human error, I meant trademark.D&#39;Brickashaw 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a piece of advice, rather than telling us that this game is notable in Australia, prove it to us. Cite your sources, where is the proof that it is notable? The reason people are voting to delete is because this looks like something that is made up. Show them proof of your claims and I'm sure they will vote to keep it. War wizard90 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Save-I would be more than happy to provide proof if you tell me what exact kind of proof you want.D&#39;Brickashaw 05:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See the guidelines under WP:NOTE, and specifically WP:WEB. If you can produce sources that meet those standards, I would be happy to change my argument.  --Haemo 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A link to the granted trademark at the United States Patent and Trademark Office would be great for verifiability. Also, newspapers, magazines or books which discuss the game to establish notability. -Canley 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you could get a copy of it, but Australian Schools Magazine ran an article on it in the November 2005 issue, mentioning my name as well as the game itself. It was also featured in the December 16th 2005 section of connect in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper which also credited me as the creator. D&#39;Brickashaw 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As well as this, PC World ran an article in it's September 2006 issue about Wikipedia Random Article Games, that quoted. "A concept that was made popular in Australia in 2002 with the advent of Connect-A-Pedia has now turned into an internet meme with thousands of copycats all over the web." This did not mention my name, but it did mention the name of my particular game and the relative location. D&#39;Brickashaw 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to the link to the trademark page, the USPTO have told me that it shoul appear on the site sometime in the next 2 weeks, I will let people know when I can. D&#39;Brickashaw 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Avoid self-references. Note also Wiki Game and Six degrees of Wikipedia - articles like this have been deleted numerous times. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, where exactly do I self-reference? If you are talking about where I say Wikipedia, it is very hard to avoid when explaining the game. D&#39;Brickashaw 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only article from PC World in Sep. of 2006 that even mentions Wikipedia, is this one, and it doesn't mention anything about Connect-A-Pedia or any related game. War wizard90 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They must not archive all articles because i have a copy of that issue in front of me right now and the article is in there. It is on the left side of page 29, i would scan it if my printer weren't broken. D&#39;Brickashaw 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, oh boy, a wiki game that's surely notable, if only there weren't a string of unfortunate circumstances that mean that none of the many, many solid references to it can't be shared or found anywhere. WP:NFT applies.  Lankiveil 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NFT, possibly WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:WEB, WP:ASR, WP:NOT, as well as numerous other guidelines which I currently can't think off the top of my head.-- TBC Φ  talk?  08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  --Roisterer 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable game, similar to countless others. No assertion of notability and no multiple sources in breach of WP:ATT. If this game really did make WP random article games popular in Australia in 2002 there will be lots of sources to confirm this, right?Jules 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - article is not notable whatsoever, and the editor responsible is lying to try and keep the content. I'd put a watch on this one so it doesn't get created again. JRG 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Connect-A-Pedia is a game that was invented by Australian High-School student Daniel Doyle. All the game requires is for the player to be browsing on the wikipedia website." This is a textbook example of something non-notable that shouldn't be included on wikipedia. Reference WP:NFT as per above - also the fact that the creator of the game is involved in this discussion is very fishy. THE KING 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NFT: "Your search - Connect-A-Pedia - did not match any documents." Krimpet 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:NFT and WP:COI. Despite creator's assertions of this game's popularity, there aren't even any hits on the Australian Google .  I don't suppose that Mr. D'Brickashaw could supply the Application or Tracking Number he would have been given by the USPTO if he really did submit this, as he alleges?  (There are advantages to working for a law firm that handles intellectual property disputes!)  Frankly, the evidence is piling up big time that this is utter BS, and the sooner the creator either puts up or ceases the malarkey the better. Ravenswing 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia namespace Al-Bargit 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia itself wasn't popular in 2002, how amazing that this game transcended the popularity of the site to become so well known in the eastern states of Australia! Even more amazing, it's an internet meme with no mention on the internet at all. The PC World "reference" is obviously bogus - the first 40 pages of the magazine consist of a review section called First Looks - they would not have an article on "Random Wiki Games" on page 29. Connect is published in the Daily Telegraph every Wednesday, yet your copy is dated 16 December 2005 which was a Friday! --Canley 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite Keeper I am reading the article the creator was talking about in the September 2006 PC World right now and it all checks out. Besides this, the article seems to be factual, well-written, and by the evidence in PC World alone it is notable. Bamkazam 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth-Saving - In my opinion articles like these are good to have, they help to make Wikipedia, more unique, user-friendly and universal. I don't understand why everytime an article that is a little alternative to the usual, people call for it to be deleted. There is room for everything on Wikipedia, people should just cut the nonsense. And if what Bamkazam said is true, it seems notable to me. Maximum andy 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets not be hasty First of all, I am a deletionist, but I think this is notable as I know for a fact that one of the sources checks out. I work for the Sydney Daily Telegraph and decided to look in the archives that are not available to the public, these contain everything. To my surprise this was mentioned in the December 16th 2005 issue of connect. At first I wanted this deleted, but now I have totally changed my tune. PS Canley, throughout late 2005 and early 2006 we did run Connect on Friday and Wednesday. Jojodeletionist 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fuck Connect-A-Pedia - Delete this fucking thing, it is pure bullshit. To the creator, you are a (Personal attack removed) ! Goshuckurself 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm. Very convincing argument, is that the way you treat people who you slightly disagree with, you are quite the skilled linguist and debater. D&#39;Brickashaw 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now, isn't this charming ... the only three editors to agree with Mr. D'Brickashaw and a convenient punching bag, all four new accounts created within a twenty minute span of one another. Someone should explain to him what a "sockpuppet" is.  Ravenswing 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. This is one of the greatest pieces of sockpuppetry I have ever seen. I think I will link to this from my userpage. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a nice idea but should have been speedy deleted - no evidence of notability at all. However the comments of Goshuckurself are quite inappropriate and volation of WP:NPA NBeale 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, as mentioned above, and while I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, it does seem a little fishy that a patent became a trademark, that this trademark/patent hybrid has not yet been included on a relevant site, that even if there was a trademark there'd still be no automatic notability, and that an article in PC World which would at least scrape the bottom of the notability barrel can only be found by two accounts with a very similar cadence. Meh. --Action Jackson IV 07:14, 9 March 2007 (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.