Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination)

Links will go to diffs of what they said. Italics is "weak" and bold is "strong"

Uh... the above table is not accurate or up to date e.g. Mailer Diablo did not !vote in this afd - he closed a previous afd Bwithh 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I stopped bothering updating it after I continued to get my head bit off for trying to assist. No good deed goes unpunished I suppose. Just H 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a vote
AfD is note a vote, it is a discussion of whether the article merits inclusion. If problems with core content policies exist, no amount of keep votes will overcome that. Substantial argument against the pro-deletion arguements rooted in policy would be required. Please do not polarise the issue by making it a for-or-against matter—anymore than it already is, anyways.  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never said it was a vote. I'm just doing this to clean up the mess that discussion had become. Just H 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be cleaned up—taking away the discussion and leaving only a tally defeats the purpose of the discussion. If the keep arguments are more sound than the delete arguments, it shouldn't matter if they were outnumbered ten to one. At best, the tally doesn't affect the outcome, but in the worst case it could bring about the wrong decision. And yes, I concede that you're not organising a vote and I do believe that you're trying to do a good thing. I simply don't agree with the act of compiling a tally.  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then. If numbers don't mean anything, people wouldn't say Keep or Delete before their comments. Quantitative and Qualitatitve input is equally important. I ask you not to discount the Quantitative because of some hot heads. Just H 06:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD instructions on How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Keep, Delete, Merge etc are the recommendation for the course of action, these recommendations need to sustained with an argument hence the requirement for text to explain an editors position, and why simple unspported recommendation should be ignored. Gnangarra 10:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I just said? Just H 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S
I was going to add links to their comments, but I may add their comments in small text or something. I'll figure it out somehow. Just H 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Opinion
Terminate this mockery of a shoutfest in favor of a discussion on the subjects that actually matter here. I've followed this debate ever since the first AfD and watched its slow decline into a ridiculous parody of itself through the second and third and fourth and umpteenth AfDs, DRVs, IRAs, PVCs and variety of other TLAs. The ludicrousity of it is just incredible in so many ways that I don't even know where to start. Is it the convenient ad-hoc paranoia surrounding savethegame.org and its campaign to infiltrate sources that pass WP:V, as if our goal weren't appropriate and informative articles (or lack of the opposite) but to make it absolutely clear that no-one manipulates Wikipedia, beyotch? Is it the laughable clinging to the Belgian newspaper article by those who favor keeping, who I somehow doubt are deep inside truly, utterly convinced that a single whimsical column completely devoid of any research or analysis validates an encyclopedia asserting a global phenomenon? Is it the equally as laughable dismissal of the gigantic weight of the evidence indeed pointing at the existence of the subject because teh internets is stupids and doesn't count which trumps any possible line of argument to the contrary and that's that? Is it the obsessive-compulsive citing of Wikipedia policy pages like WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:DRV or WP:OMGWTFBBQ even though the lack of consensus surrounding these policies and their interpretations in the context of this problematic article should have become perfectly bloody clear to everybody involved given the shiny words for the sixth time pasted on the AfD notice or, failing that, the fact that the policy pages themselves are the subject of heated discussion and edit wars? Is it the gargantuan maelstrom of unearthly shouts of DELETE! and KEEP! and OMG VOTESTACKING! and THIS GUY DOESN'T COUNT! and YES HE DOES! and NO HE DOESN'T! immediately following the meager little silly announcement at the top, meekly noting that technically, this is not a vote?...

I'm not against the process of AfD, understand. I think the consensus-driven process of AfD is a good idea and a much better alternative than most others, and generally I am not a whining quack here to run in angry circles and vent about the futility of process (picture that, if you will - Whine! Whine! Quack! Quack!). But I seriously think that by this point playing by the usual rules of AfD has proven itself futile for dealing with the more fundamental issues disputed here, such as at what point exactly does a collection of assorted sources surmount the verifiability challenge, and which sources count and which don't, and whether or not the esoteric nature or silliness or magnitude of claims made within an article's subject matter should affect the degree to which we're strict with the policy requirements on it. Sure, nobody's /admitting/ that these are the issues and everybody's pretending they're not there and this debate could be settled if one side were to fling a decidedly large chunk of Wikipedia policy at the other, but that does not make them any less the issues. And above everything else, for me what transpired just above is proof positive that if you set up your discussion in a way that walks like a vote, talks like a vote and quacks like a vote, it will be a vote. Attempting to discern anything useful from where this discussion is going at present yields something to the extent of "ooh, the deletes are shouting louder and have longer paragraphs and there're more of them, so delete it is, then". That's instinctive and natural and obvious and WRONG in every possible way if we want this encyclopedia to be run by something with at least a semblance of consensus rather than mob rule.

Inevitably some Admin's time is going to be terribly wasted reading this whole discussion and the vast resources of new and compelling syllogisms in favor of one side of the other that nobody was aware of during the last five AfDs, amounting to approximately nil. I suppose there could be many ways to deal with what this discussion has become; and though I stay away from most AfDs, somehow I have a hunch that a lot of them have become like this, and likewise an idea for what could possibly be a better and cleaner way to run AfDs like these (or any AfD for that matter). Let the proponents collaboratively construct the respective cases for keeping and deleting, and sign their name at a separate section in the end, like This. It wouldn't solve everything, but I believe it'd be a step in the right direction. --AceMyth 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * AceMyth- I find a lot of what you say compelling about the AfD process...


 * And, would you be willing to move it somewhere that actually is a discussion of policy page? This page doesn't really appear to be about a disucssion page for changing the AFd process.Sethie 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably a lot more useful as a high-profile rant here than as a suggestion elsewhere. Also, I'm so copying that to my own notes. --Kizor 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading that, I'm still wondering what gives paranoia the distinction of being "ad-hoc" and what sort of accomplishment it is to make an admin waste his/her time reading a rant that complains about wasting admin time. It doesn't really add to the AfD discussion at hand. I've given this nonsense its own section to separate it from the AfD debate/discussion/vote/whatever, but it probably ought to be moved to the talk page instead. In all seriousness, the only thing keeping AfD from being a vote is the fact that closing admins do not (or at least should not) be counting heads, but deciding whether an article merits deletion based on policy after considering the points raised in discussion. If that happens, people can do all the votestacking they want and it won't skew the results.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * AceMyth wrote:if you set up your discussion in a way that walks like a vote, talks like a vote and quacks like a vote, it will be a vote. Attempting to discern anything useful from where this discussion is going at present yields something to the extent of "ooh, the deletes are shouting louder and have longer paragraphs and there're more of them, so delete it is, then. In my experience, admins are typically much more sophisticated in their closings than this caricature - afd does not in practice operate as a vote or a shouting match. Fundamentally, its where policy and consensus interpretation of established guidelines are affirmed Bwithh 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. "what gives paranoia the distinction of being "ad-hoc""? That there are a myriad groups out there interested in manipulating any and all media outlets in any and all directions. You'd expect somebody enlightened enough to point accusing fingers at potential sources because of savethegame.org to point similar fingers at controversial material cited pretty much everywhere and go "halt! But this could be the illuminati!", clearly reducing this line of argument to an absurdity. That this sudden pre-emptive skepticism about potential verifiable sources emerged independently like that carries a strong scent of ad-hoc about it. I'm not pretending that the fact some people set out to manipulate Wikipedia isn't disturbing; it is. But in the end nothing good can come out of falling prey to such alien considerations, and they only make our decision process vulnerable to manipulation in a different way (consider that I can now decide to open up a website that pretends to advocate some controversial article I actually want /out/ of Wikipedia).


 * 2. "what sort of accomplishment it is to make an admin waste his/her time reading a rant that complains about wasting admin time?" Hoo, ouch burn.


 * 3. "In my experience, admins are typically much more sophisticated in their closings than this caricature." First of all, the majority of the people who have to put up with this are not the admins but the editors. It's been almost a year and we're still having almost the exact same dispute with the exact same arguments and counter-arguments after being terminated and re-opened for five times not counting DRVs and such. Can you honestly say there's nothing wrong with that? Second, that admins are expected to formulate a balanced opinion based on solely the arguments involved while paying no heed to the fact that text devoted to one opinion dominates 80% of the page space does not mean that psychologically they actually do, as after all they are only human. Given what we know about humans, a skew is inevitable, and it's for this reason that the NPoV policy says this in a section called "fairness of tone":


 * "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."


 * "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."


 * This is talking about article space, but consider the rationale guiding it: That the person coming across the page in question would be the most likely to form their opinion based on the strength of the arguments for and the arguments against. Given the function of an AfD page and that the decision ultimately rests in the hands of exactly such a person, namely an admin, I can't see why the same shouldn't apply here. --AceMyth 07:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Because this is not the place for a discussion of this level, I'll try to be brief. Assuming you are correct, how do you intend to bring about change on with a cynical tone, on a specific AfD? It would be more productive if you could come up with a better process and suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I think democracy is flawed, but I don't denounce it in the streets since I've got nothing better to suggest.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just as well that Wikipedia is not a democracy then! --Richmeistertalk 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "How do you intend to bring about change on with a cynical tone, on a specific AfD?" I wanted to get the attention of people involved in this AfD and the admin who will eventually make the decision one way or the other. I figured it belongs very well right in the living, breathing example of what it sets out to prevent. I do have positive suggestions: One, that is admittedly a long shot, is the elimination of the way a tone can dominate an AfD page regardless of what the arguments for or against happen to be; Two, that is very relevant to this specific AfD, is to put this discussion on hold and figure out the ambiguities in policy that are fueling it. Because otherwise there will always be another AfD or another DRV, and if you delete and salt sooner or later another article will crop up with exactly these controversies surrounding it - and I'd very much rather see it promptly kept or deleted rather than having to follow a gazillion discussions throughout two whole years all over again.
 * As for the cynical tone, from my experience not much of a powerful rhetoric is conveyed when pointing at absurdities with a care bear stare. --AceMyth
 * I must say, after your most recent comments it is much easier to understand and empathise with the angle you're coming from. As for the care bear stare, well, it's a sad state of affairs but I can't argue its effectiveness.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)