Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four letter 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 redirect to Jotto. Should be a delete, really, but redirects are cheap. Mostly a duplicate of this article, and effectively the same game. Black Kite 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four letter game

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is basically just the explanation of a made up game. Wiki is not for things made up in one day. Article also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would also characterize this as failing WP:NOTHOWTO. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is not a game I made up, or a game played by a handful of my friends. I've played it with people at UT, graduates from Dartmouth, and people from California (You've really never heard of the four letter game?). I know at the moment the article looks like a 'how to,' but that's not the intent; it isn't finished yet, and I'm trying to write the article as any other informative encyclopedia entry (similar to other games such as hangman). --SJakeK (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — SJakeK [reply]
Don't Delete! I'm a teacher's aid at an elementary school in Denton, Texas. We use this game to teach the third graders in our advanced classes how to use lateral thinking, also how to spell. --173.74.86.201 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — 173.74.86.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No, I'd never heard of it. Then again, have you heard of Slippery Ann, or Whot? Searching reveals Four Letter Game to have a few hits. Unfortunately, most of them seem to not be this game. Hangman. Now there's a game with a long history and very wide spread. More widespread than UT (UT? What it?), Dartmouth (presumably not the original one in Devon) and 'people from California' (1 person, 27 people, or 50% of the population?). I'm afraid I don't count the references as particularly reliable. The popculture games site is very new looking, and somewhat anonymous. Geocities for another is self-published stuff and only a last resort without further backing. The length and apparent complexity of the rules would seem to me to preclude the spread of this game beyond the bored intellectual class. (People who can use the word 'aeon' and mean it.) But it's current spread not future we need to address. Current looks limited. Future falls foul of Wikipedia policies. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope the poster above is a teacher's aide rather than aid. Mind you, they do have interactive whiteboards now.Peridon (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your question on what 'UT' is, it's the University of Texas. It's not a game I simply made up off the spur of the moment; truth be told, I picked it up from my little sister (who, coincidentaly is also in an advanced elementary class -4th grade- but in the Plano, Texas school district. I can assure you that our teachers and teachers' aides can spell, but Denton's . . . I cannot vouch for them), and she explained it to me, so I'm not sure the claim that it's signficantly more complex than hangman or 'dots'- or too comlpex for the general public- is valid. I'm not too surprised that three of the five people here have never heard of it, but I am surprised that there are as few sites detailing the game as there are. Again, I'm asking for a few more days to finish collecting sources (more importantly, notable ones) and flush out the background; intially when the article was nominated for deletion (2-12-09), it was given a five day time frame to be 'cleaned up.' I'd say I should be able to finish compiling the article by then.--SJakeK (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited to back up the claims stated above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a game I made up, or a game played by a handful of my friends. Sums it up. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What specific resource are you guys looking for? If there is something in the explanation of the game you find to be completely fabricated or an obvious mistake please let everybody know. This is the explanation (with examples) of a game that requires you to think, and something I'm sure teachers would much rather have their students play rather than Pac-Man or some other game easily accessed on a cell phone. You personally may not want this game to "exist" on Wikipedia, but the game is real. I don't understand why somebody calls for the deletion of a page that offers an insightful and very well organized explanation of a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbp3 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a look at what is considered a reliable source. If you only assert the existence of the game, you are in fact asserting that it is not worthy of mention in Wikipedia, even if the game actually does exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a few more sources, one of which is an online flash version of the game. Hopefully that adresses the 'made up in a day' and 'played by only my friends' concerns. As for reliability, I think I may have found a few more reliable sites, though again, I'm not sure what standard you're looking for, as this is a pop culture game, not some particle theory article, so there won't exactly be Ph.D.s publishing articles about the subject. I checked out the Wiki articles for dots and hangman and I'm looking for sources on par with those pages (sources that are generally '.com' and '.net' with few or no citations). --SJakeK (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, so I did manage to find one reliable source in text- I have yet to link it- but I found three different versions of the game that can played on a computer as an example of how the game works and the rules for the game, which seems to be a common method of citation for 'pen and paper games' articles on Wiki. In addition, I found a book that details using it for instructional purposes, though at the moment I only have the site for it linked, but no call number. Past these ten or so references, I'm not sure what else to look for. --SJakeK (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicate of Jotto. FYI, generic names such as "Four letter game" appear to be things made within one day. However, Jotto is a registered trademark of a commercially released game, and there's definatly references on how to best complete the game - in addition to the many variants that it produced. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge/Redirect to Jotto. Jotto appears to be a legitamately notable form of the game. I question the value of some of the howto type information, but if anything beyond that can be found in this article, it may be appropriate to merge it. If there is a chance that users will search on this term looking for the game, then keeping as a redirect is appropriate regardless of merge taking place or not. I haven't done the reasearch to see if this might be the case or not, hence the 'weak'. -Verdatum (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jotto; there is obviously a significant number of people playing this game who are unaware of its origins that a redirect would be not only appropriate, but substantially informative. DHowell (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by a single reliable source; should any be found (not forums, not promotional sites, not blogs) supporting the existence of such a game with that name, then - and only then - would a redirect to Jotto be appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.