Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia games


 * 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. People "invent" this game at least twice a week, its deletion has been discussed many times in the past. Also, no sources, ASR, etc.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia games

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has several things wrong with it. Firstly, it, more or less, is a self-reference in the main namespace, see (WP:ASR). Secondly, it seems to contain original research/weasel words and most importantly, it doesn't really deserve an article of its own as it has only a few sources, and the sources used include postings on a message board and a blog, which are not reliable sources (WP:RS). The article is redundant within the main namespace but this text probably should be copied to another page in the Wikipedia namespace.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I prodded this some time ago with similar concerns to those of the nominator. This topic is already covered pretty well in the Wikipedia namespace at Wiki_Game so there's not much need to merge any text. - Ehheh 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. DreamGuy 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If we can have articles on Wikipedia and criticism of Wikipedia both of which are self-references, we can have an article on this. Voortle 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the difference between this article and the others you mentioned is that the latter have reliable third party sources. RFerreira 05:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete First, note that ASR is a stylistic issue. It in no way means we cannot have articles about Wikipedia nor does it say that we should not. However, this is completely OR so it should be deleted. JoshuaZ 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ehheh. We have deleted articles about 19 different versions of this game before. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G4. I doubt this varies much from the 19 different closed AfDs that Metropolitan90 catalogued, thus making it a repost of content deleted by AfD discussion. Natalie 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Metropolitan90. Numerous previous discussions have consistently found that this game isn't a notable topic. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete oh no, not this again. I guess we've established by now that unless we get sources, we can't have the article, and even if we do, it's probably best discussed in the appropriate article as a very small footnote. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, didn't notice this is discussed in that article. No sources, but I do agree that's a much better place for this. Even more reasons to delete this article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 12 June 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.