Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with unspecified rules


 * 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 keep.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of games with unspecified rules

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Untidy load of boring, non-notable, unsourced cr*p. It doesn't need to be here. Rambutan (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. If it's untidy then it can be tidied, and it doesn't matter how much it bores you. But the links to other, existing articles are (or are at least likely to be) notable and sourced; it seems trivial enough to tidy this up into a simple list of articles. Would suggest a merge with List of fictional games, but the "actual games" section wouldn't fit there. I agree that it's not much of a list, though. --McGeddon 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you the article's creator? Yes, it could be tidied, but it's not a notable topic under the auspices of the notability policy. Nobody would look at that article, and even if they did they'd go away as ignorant as they arrived. It's taking up our kilobytes unnecessarily.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was originally a sprawling section of the Mornington Crescent (game) article, I just lifted it out a while ago for being off topic. --McGeddon 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per R. McGeddon. He doesn't have to be the article's creator to comment upon it.  I agree that there's enough notability for the list to continue, and a category wouldn't serve since the names alone don't say much.  There is room for improvement, as is the case of BTW-- if nobody looked at the article, how did it get nominated? Mandsford 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got a feeling that you understand what I mean. BTW, you misunderstood my "are you the creator" - I was just interested.--Rambutan (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. But note that there might be a merger candidate, not in Mornington Crescent, but in nomic.  Because WP:DASH suggests that disjunctions should be indicated, any merger should be cotangent to avoid the possibility of loop links, so be certain to place a diaeresis on the originating page. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - To be sourced and cleaned up, but not to be deleted.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Week Delete I feel this list borders on being a directory of loosely assosiated topics. And WP isn't a directory of loosely assosiated topics.    Sasha Callahan   20:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As this is a content fork from Mornington Crescent and does have some references, at least the editors of that article didn't seem to think it should be deleted outright. Mostly needs to be additionally referenced, especially the fiction ones.  --Rocksanddirt 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace the notable ones with a category, as there is no way to know whether all the stuff mentioned here are hoaxes Corpx 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I followed the link to this article, and found it both interesting and amusing. Yes, Rambutan, it's narrow, but a site with two million articles will have some narrow ones. There exist people who enjoy it, though (such as myself) and it's not something that should be deleted just because some people find it boring. Alsadius 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because not only is the selection criterion arbitray, most of the games are either made up in school one day or rely on an editor's judgment as to whether they have unspecified rules; one, for example, uses improvised jargon, but that does not mean it doesn't have rules as such. Virtually none of the entries are actually cited to an independent source which explicitly states that they have unspecified rules. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was looking at a number of games that had unspecified rules, and then followed the link I found to this article, which I enjoyed. It is not "boring" to me.  On it are a number of games that I have heard of, a couple of which I have even played.  Several have been mentioned on widely spread media.  In other words, not all the games are "non-notable".  However, I must reiterate what others have said about the article needing cleaning up.  The games should all either be sourced, or have wikipedia articles, with the extras deleted.  That addresses "unsourced".  This article should be linked to from all the games mentioned in the article, which would take care of the "orphan" issue.  All in all, one man's "crap" is another man's fertilizer.  BTW, "taking up our kilobytes" is not a reason for deletetion.   --Jjamison 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article a bit. Mostly it was sources and links, but I deleted a couple games.  Hope this improves the article enough so that it is not deleted. --Jjamison 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article more. --Jjamison 06:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it sounded really ridiculous from the title, but I looked at the revised article. "Unspecified rules" is being used in the sense of "deliberately concealed rules" A good and encyclopedic article on an unexpected subject. suggest re-titling to clarify the scope. DGG (talk)
 * Rename (along with keep, above): I like the idea of a rename. How about "List of games with concealed rules"? --Jjamison 03:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I suppose the concept is sufficiently notable, given the blue links to most of these games - I do remember something in grade school along the lines of things Mrs. McGillicuddy likes: kittens but not cats, puppies but not dogs, butter and jelly but not margarine or jam, etc. The article is just in poor shape but could likely be sourced and improved. A re-title along the lines of DGG is probably also a good thing. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 10 September 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.