Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keys (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. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keys (game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A pair of invented games added by the same author. No evidence of notability, WP:NFT, and even the link provided does not contain any information about this game. See also the author's comment at Talk:Keys (game), acknowledging lack of notability and expressing a wish that Wikipedia should be a forum for promoting as-yet-unknown topics.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to see evidence of a game that is not "invented". If you're asserting that I invented it, I'm sorry to say that I didn't, and am, in fact, not even a member of the organization which I believe did. The only evidence of the game I have is playing it with friends, and hearing of it from the 4H friends I know. I'm just trying to educate. If you happen to have information that contradicts a claim in the article, please correct it. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, the article is factual.Maxwelldangersearcy (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check out WP:But it's true! and WP:BUTITEXISTS, which although nonbinding essays represent the way many people think.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the games described by my contributions are noteworthy due to their mere existence and context. The articles ARE helpful as they educate, and ARE notable as they can be verified by those whom the claims regard. "The author" as you put it in your above comment does not acknowledge "lack of notability" and DOES express a wish that Wikipedia promote as-yet-uknown (to its users) topics. Wikipedia is the best friend of the autodictact, and should remain so. Articles representing information which ONLY aides to bring into the lives of those who read it, new, factual information, should be unquestionably permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of Draconian regulations which prohibit the free trade of such information.Maxwelldangersearcy (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, others generally don't see it that way here, but your viewpoint is a totally legitimate one and you may find the type of place you're looking for on Alternative outlets.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've taken a second to think about, and I'm sorry if I've come off a little snappy. It's 4 AM here, I should probably be asleep. Anyway, thank you for your suggestions, I guess, my viewpoint just isn't the majority of the Wikipedia community's? I'll move my content, then. Thank you.65.80.22.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * No worries, it's late here too and I'm going to bed also. I know it's rough, but unfortunately a lot of people's very first experience editing on Wikipedia is having their brand new article almost instantaneously tagged for deletion.  It must be very annoying and I can see how it would be really off-putting, but the flip side is that it we didn't do that we'd be absolutely flooded with articles on nonsense phrases, "Brittany is the kewlest girl ever!!," and so on.  So don't take it personally, and I hope you stick around and continue to edit here and there when you're reading a Wikipedia article and you see something you can improve.  Thanks for your comment; if only all new editors kept it real!--   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The games are not yet nottable enough for inclusion, and despite the authors suggestion that Wikipedia should be a home for the new and unheard-of, it is not - it is an encyclopedia of the notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. User:65.80.22.189 stated above: "I'll move my content, then. Thank you." I'm assuming that this is a statement coming from the original poster, User:Maxwelldangersearcy, when the user wasn't logged in. If Maxwelldangersearcy can log in, come back to this discussion and personally restate their desire to remove the content, then we can speedy delete these articles under WP:G7. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both as non-notable games with no coverage in reliable sources, however, if we can't do a G7. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  —Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since these games are entirely non-notable. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 31 December 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.