Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lying down 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The result was   WITHDRAWN (non admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lying down game

 * – ( View AfD View log )

silly unremarkable fad. Any coverage has been in "news of the weird" or "bright" type news. Not the kid of significant coverage demanded by WP:GNG. Prod was contested with the entertaining but ridiculous claim that the fad is a "central pillar of Western Civilization.''

Also nominating for similar reasons. RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Former arcticles:
 * Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game
 * Articles for deletion/Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game) --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge at Planking (fad) due to the media related to fatality. This is notable in the way that Pole sitting is, an eminently silly fad of similar nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Planking (fad) has multiple broadsheet RS due to a fatality overnight. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Fifelfoo, I think there is sufficient news coverage to keep a short objective article on the fad. --99of9 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge (with redirect) and keep. Now that it's been in the mainstream news, it's a notable silly fad. I'd tentatively suggest Planking as the target, since that's the term used in the apparent major notability but could also see Lying down game if that's a well-established original term for it. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). What, coverage in The Times, The Telegraph, The Atlantic, and France 24 is not enough? You want The Economist and Foreign Affairs? Give it a while and I can probably get you those. Notable entity which is reshaping our very definition of the important concept of "utterly pointless", and is perhaps no less than a stormcrow of the final collapse of the West. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge It may be silly but it is notable. Barrylb (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment yes it's received some coverage in reliable sources but let's use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. It's an article about kids laying on the ground and calling it a "thing".    This is essentially something made up which is so ridiculous that it's getting some media coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MADEUP says things that have "not yet been featured in reliable sources" shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. This has. Barrylb (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * keep I just heard it reported on BBC News; coupled w/ the refs given, I think that's enogh to show notability.  Chzz  ► 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has sufficient RS coverage, WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination notwithstanding. No opposition to an editorial merge with Planking (fad), but I don't see any reason it should be mandated by this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Planking (fad). It has received significant coverage recently, and although it is a silly fad, it's a notable silly fad. StuartH (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge; I'm not sure whether it's distinct. Discuss on the talk page.  This is one of the rare peculiar things for which I saw sources before I saw the Wikipedia article     DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Planking. Plenty of coverage, especially here in Oz where some drunk just killed doing it; and the disambiguation seems unnecessary since there are no other articles called Planking.  Jpatokal (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep has been in numerous reports lately. I agree it could go to Planking as it is the only topic with this title.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Sufficient press coverage for notability. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Planking. I would have said 'delete' before the recent fatality, but now someone has died doing it (leading to commentary from the Australian Prime Minister, amongst others) it's undoubtedly become notable. Robofish (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Planking (fad), not directly because it has been found notable by the media, but because it is a sociological phenomenon with many references on the internet. Surely we do not need to wait for it to become the topic of theses or be mentioned in a bestseller in order for it to be deemed notable by Wikipedia. Collieuk (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep although, I think there is a merge issue. Someone made a dulpicate page a few weeks ago.Articles_for_deletion/Silver_Bullet_(Lying_Down_Game). The latest Australian news probably makes this now a speedy keep candidate http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/planking-death-australian-prime-minister. It has had multiple long articles in different National newspapers that clearly pass GNG. I have to say though that it is not what I would call a game but an activity and a risks section might be needed.Tetron76 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * withdrawn pretty clear that there is strong support for keeping this in some merged form. I'm widrawing the nomination and will leave it to those supporting retention of this article to deal with the merge issues.  Please keep in mind that this is a shallow topic with similarly shallow coverage.  A good article will most likely be created around the social aspects of this topic rather than the topic itself.  Also please be careful to keep WP:NOT in mind as this article continues to evolve.--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (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.