The Game (mind game)

The Game (mind game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a joke, a hoax, a prank. Jonty Haywood – who is quoted by several sources in the article, is the creator of LoseTheGame.com (which hosts several of the sources), and is the author of the petition mentioned in the article – was responsible for the Porthemmet Beach hoax. Among the sources for the article are social media postings, articles from student newspapers, and an email apparently sent to a school boy by the Australian prime minister. And it's illustrated by a picture of a toilet. The GA Review was obviously done as a joke. It didn't discuss any of the obvious problems with the article, including the sources. Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. GA reviews don't address notability, but they do address verifiability. And this game does indeed seem to exist. Here's an article about it at The Next Web. The article itself is obviously not a hoax, though I suppose you may mean that The Game is a prank people play on each other. Well, OK, but that's a perfectly legitimate topic for an article on Wikipedia. Do you have a better deletion rationale? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[That article is basically a copy of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]

• • Keep. Yeah, I'm going with "keep", too, and I think this could even be closed as "speedy keep" based on the current deletion rationale. The article itself is obviously not a hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Eh? I don't understand how the article is "a hoax", having written most of it myself. The Game is a real thing—you can call it an internet craze or a childish school game or whatever, but it's just as real as duck, duck, goose or Charlie Bit My Finger or whatever else you might consider to be absurd, but is still notable (at least in my opinion).

Among the sources for the article are articles from the Metro, The Canadian Press and the Rutland Herald. Feel free to be bold and remove some of the more dubious sources if you like—having not looked at the article properly for about a year, I'm sure I'd be quite ashamed of what I would have considered to be suitable encyclopedic sourcing back then—but focus on the good sources, not the bad. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm !voting keep.

TheQ Editor hasn't edited for several months, but I'm sure they would tell you they took the review seriously and I think it's quite rude to say it was "obviously done as a joke". By all means, initiate a GAR, but please don't insult other users editing in good faith.

I think it's worth pointing out that although this page reads "7th nomination", the last proper nomination (excluding a bad faith pointed nomination) was back in 2006. It ended with "delete", 2006 was before most of the sources now in the article were written. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of the nominator's feelings towards the subject of the article, there very clearly are enough sources to satisfy the GNG. A lot of the arguments from the 2009 snow keep still apply. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Evidence of significant coverage by various news outlets present in the article. Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Altamel (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this really the seventh Afd nomination and if so, why does only one and seven show in the above box? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other deletion nominations were conducted when the article was under a different title, namely, "The Game (game)". Altamel (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and dammit after many years I just lost the game. Artw (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations, so I would appreciate a more thoughtful response. My "feelings" about the article are that it is quite humorous, but it that it doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. I said this article is "a joke, a hoax, a prank". It's very hard for me to categorise this article. The information isn't verifiable in a normal sense. That isn't acceptable in Wikipedia. For example, the lead states: "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". Who is Jonty Haywood? He is a known prankster who has been involved in the creation of this article under the name Kernow and possibly other names. The article also says: "petitions in Britain trying to pass laws involving The Game have been created". There is a source for this: a petition to Bristol City Council with one signature – Haywood. Haywood is not a school boy: he appears to be a teacher who graduated from Cambridge. Don't tell me that petition was not a prank! Does the game exist? I don't know. If you unscramble the paradoxical rules, the object of the game is publicise the game, thus causing other people to "lose the game". Hence, this article itself is part of the game. While there might be someone out there "playing the game", as it stands, the article is largely a vehicle for promoting Haywood and his pranks. That fails the criterion of notability. It's been said that there are verifiable sources. Let's look at these in turn:

1. Daily Nebraskan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source.

2. De Pers: based on an interview with Haywood.

3. Metro (1): a short snippet that refers to Haywood's website.

4. Rutland Herald: an article that refers to Haywood's website.

5. Canadian Press: quotes Haywood.

6. LA Loyolan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source. Refers to Haywood's website.

7. xkcd: a comic.

8. Cory Antiel: Apparently a student essay. Apparently Antiel is a puppeteer. Hosted by Haywood's website.

9. Metro (2): quotes Haywood.

10. KC Star: refers to Haywood's website.

11. Petition: authored by Haywood – see comments above.

12. Kevin Rudd email. Hosted by Haywood's website. A non-notable prank.

13. Daily Globe: refers to Haywood's website.

14. "The Game (I lost!)": a blog on a site called arseburgers.co.uk.

15. Tolstoy: no direct connection.

16. Dostoyevsky: no direct connection.

17. Wikinews: an interview with Haywood.

18. SBMC: a comic.

19. RealLife Comics: a comic.

20. Youtube.

21. Youtube.

22. Twitter.

23. Facebook.

24. TechCrunch: report of 4chan prank. Doesn't explain what "the game" is.

25. ABC News: blog, page unavailable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The list of references Jack Upland gives may not be the strongest collection ever put together, but together they do enough to satisfy me that the topic is sufficiently notable for a low-importance article, particularly as it is known fairly widely and over a period of many years. (Notwithstanding the article does require some clean-up). Aspirex (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It is strange that none of the above responses reply to my point about Jonty Haywood. Either this is a hoax, or there are no sources that allow someone who stumbles across the article, like me, to verify that it is not a hoax. That is what verifiable sources are for. They are not simply a box to be ticked. I believe it is a hoax. People who claim that they "play the game" are like people who claim to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I am not saying this because Bilorv is a follower of this "church".) Do they really believe the cult-like claims of the game? Do they believe that everyone is playing? Do they believe that only the British PM can end the game? If people were genuinely playing, they would not make a website about the game, because that involves thinking about the game. They would not write newspaper columns about the game. They would not write this article. They would not participate in this discussion. They would not oppose the deletion of this article. The claims about the game are not genuinely believed. We have an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we say that it is a parody (despite the fact that people vigorously argue otherwise). We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, but not about the beach. If people want to write an article about their hoax and their pranks, OK. But an article which states the game is genuine is not OK. Wikipedia just lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your point about Jonty Haywood is not a challenge to notability. We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, as you quite rightly state; this is because that while it was something Haywood did for a bit of a laugh, it is notable. You could say the same here. I doubt Haywood invented The Game, but that's not the point – he's been involved in spreading The Game across the internet. It's a game. A meme, an idea, a concept. Calling it "a hoax" is like saying Chinese whispers is just a hoax. It doesn't make sense. It's an idea that most certainly exists, whatever its origins, and in both cases has been reported on widely enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about it. The British prime minister being able to end The Game, that everyone is playing but only a few know they are playing etc. – these are all jokes, non-serious rules that accompany The Game and vary from group to group, like the rules of any other game. Your analysis of the references above is flawed in that it considers mentioning Haywood to disqualify it from being a reliable source, as if this is some sort of conspiracy to deceive people into believing... well, I don't know what, really. You accuse me, journalists and everyone here of some vague conspiracy. You seem to have changed your stance from saying the article should be deleted to saying that we should write in the article that it's a hoax or "parody" (of what?) of some sort.

  I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny. Avoiding loss is not really the point (as the article points out). The point is to have fun. This is the point of every game. And yes, I "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I also like Doctor Who. So what? None of these three things are "real" in any meaningful sense, but they are concepts that exist, that are talked about, represented in various media and reported on by secondary sources. You wouldn't nominate the latter two for AfD.

  And as for the cheap "If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations" argument, it's just wrong. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been nominated for deletion 8 times; this rather offensive subject has been the subject of 22 AfDs. Both still have pages. The common theme? Childish, immature, very much internet focused, but still discussed in reliable sources and still notable. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny." Thank you. You have just confirmed that I am right: it is a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have anything meaningful to say, this will be my last reply here. I wrote a lot of words there and you've just cherry picked a few of them to confirm some deluded conspiracy of yours. A hoax is (according to Google) "a humorous or malicious deception". Where is the deception here? What do you feel you are tricked into believing? There is nothing written in the article that is untrue. And how does this mean the article should be deleted? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is hardly anything in the article that is not a bogus claim or the reporting of a bogus claim. For example, "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". As you have confirmed, there is probably nobody playing the game. Haywood probably said that, but it is just nonsense, not an estimate. This is a hoax. The guidelines are clear: we can write an article about a hoax, but not an article that perpetuates a hoax. It doesn't matter whether the hoax originated with the article, or not.

As you say, Haywood "been involved in spreading The Game across the internet". Almost all of the sources link directly back to Haywood. He put forward the petition. He even took the picture of the toilet. This raises the issue of notability, and makes it all seem promotional, particularly as Haywood was involved in establishment of this article. It also underlines the fact that it is a hoax. It also raises the issue of verifiability. The sources echo Haywood's bogus claims uncritically (and light-heartedly). They are not independent, reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG with ease. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The sources are not independent reliable sources. Almost all uncritically echo Haywood. They are examples of humorous, "silly season" reporting, or blogging. Simply because a few sources play along with (or are taken in by) a hoax, does not make the story verified.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]