Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Word Worm

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The main contention here is whether the one reliable source satisfies the general notability guideline. As has been argued by those voting delete, multiple sources are required; though there are some special cases where one source is enough, no-one has provided any reason that one should be enough in this case. Thus, the consensus is to delete the article, according to the GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Word Worm

edit
Lord Word Worm (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 about a paper puzzle, which is also implemented as a computer game (Facebook app) which lacks the multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Of the article's sources, lordwordworm.com is a primary source, and reddit and digg are not reliable sources. This leaves a Gamasutra blog post which is from the inventor of the game (not independent), and a CityNews, a local Canberra magazine which provides coverage about the game and company. This is insufficient to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A merge to Word ladder, a similar but more famous puzzle, is one possibility. Since the puzzle has appeared in a major newspaper and there's at least one book of the puzzles, and it's has some press/web coverage it probably merits a mention, even if it's not judged independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The entry provides an impartial, concise and clear description of the Lord Word Worm online game and paper puzzle system. According to feedback, it's often the first point of reference for retailers, syndicates, editors and the general public interested in this topic.
Lord Word Worm is still in its early days of growth and shows signs of becoming a significant entry in the genre of puzzles. Within twelve months of the release of the initial puzzles, they have been syndicated, published online and printed in newspapers and magazines. A compilation book of the puzzles has been published and is now sold in retail stores and online. As with other puzzles' initial stages, (e.g. Sudoku), the author anticipates additional sources to become available as interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand. Inventerprising (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Inventerprising (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines. Without coverage in reliable sources, the inclusion criteria aren't met. The fact that you state that "interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand" would indicate that it's premature for an article. I also note based on your user name and the statement "According to feedback..." that you may have a conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that "interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand" suggests it's premature for an article. Many Wikipedia articles and objects could be described this way (including Wikipedia itself). Furthermore, I believe one of Wikipedia's strengths is providing information on popular emerging topics without the delays inherent in print publications. Inventerprising (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, as there just aren't multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Almost none of the sources currently in the article qualify as they are laregely things like the official site, or reddit threads, and there aren't really any more that I can find. If the game does become notable later on, and more sources actually appear that can support it, then there is no prejudice against recreating it then. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although a redirect/mention in Word ladder might be suitable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, a cut about WP:NFT, anyway, but obviously this fails of notability. Ravenswing 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (further information): The article satisfies the General Notability Guideline criteria. With respect to concerns that there are not multiple independent sources (the CityNews article is the only reliable independent source), the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that in the absence of multiple sources, the source must reflect a neutral point of view and be credible. In addition, consideration should be given to the following: the puzzles have been syndicated and published in a major newspaper and several minor newspapers and magazines; the article includes multiple sources (some are not considered reliable, some not considered independent); it has a reliable independent source; it has a book sold online and in retail stores; the article provides an impartial, concise and clear description of the topic. Inventerprising (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - You are free to add commentary, but please, only add one bolded recommendation. -- Whpq (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You claim that the article satisfies the GNG. No, it does not. The requirement that there be multiple reliable sources is a bright-line rule, and there is no text in the guideline providing for exemptions. Notability, by contrast, is not conferred by the publication of a book, by the mere fact of syndication, by the number of unqualifying sources proffered or by however well the article is written. I'm afraid we're considerably more oriented towards ensuring that articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines than in exemptions for articles which don't. Ravenswing 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. After checked through the GNG numerous times (and again after your comment to ensure I wasn't misguided), there isn't a bright-line rule or any other rule indicating multiple reliable sources are required. The statement "Multiple sources are generally expected" follows the explicit statement that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." And the footnote clarifies "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source...". This is why I feel it's important to consider all the other circumstances mentioned above. Inventerprising (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I am rather surprised that in your numerous reads of the GNG, you missed this text, which is plainly on that page: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement."

          While I'm sure you have an explanation for missing that text on several passes over the page, what's more germane is that this is exactly the sort of situation leading to why WP:COI exists. Ravenswing 03:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          • Comment. The dot point you quoted refers to multiple sources (which the article currently has). Other dot points in that section refer to reliable sources, independent sources, secondary sources and other matters. In my opinion, the "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source..." sentence in the GNG is significant. Inventerprising (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply - That statement isn't that significant given that it appears in the footnotes. Generally speaking, multiple independent reliable sources are needed. How many is "multiple"? That depends on the source of the coverage, and what the coverage represents. Because of that, editor can disagree on inclusion. That said, it's extremely rare for a subject to be deemed notable based on only one reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This one's not so clear cut. The article appears to be neutral and unbiased. If we assume the newspapers and book sales are an indication of some interest then keeping the article aligns more closely with Wiki's "principle and spirit" and five pillars. The risk is wasted storage space if the article is not actually a significant topic of interest. Michaelstevensoz (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Michaelstevensoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is also the creator of the article. [reply]
  • Reply: I first saw Lord Word Worm puzzles in a magazine. I'm a puzzle fan, hadn't seen these ones before and recognised they were a step above the usual (IMO). I couldn't find a decent summary online at the time other than the author(s) website which seemed long-winded to me, so had an attempt at creating the Wiki page.
One of the objectives of the article is to provide a concise and clear set of instructions (similar to other Wiki articles covering board, card and computer games, other puzzles, quiz shows, sports etc). From this perspective, the official website is not an independent source, but it is a very reliable source; we can assume the website's author(s) are experts on the topic.
The puzzles have been published in varying styles, shapes and complexities online and in print, in magazines and newspapers (including Australia's largest newspaper), along with instructions. The book contains a series of puzzles and detailed instructions (better than their website IMO). I don't think this is appropriate to include as a reliable source, but it is another type of source. I'm not sure if/how to include some without copyright issues. It also suggests there's some public interest and the interest isn't short term.
The article has multiple sources of varying combinations (eg reliable/unreliable, dependent/independent, primary, secondary etc), but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any independent reliable sources other than CityNews. CityNews is a well-respected weekly magazine covering Australia's capital city and surrounding areas. The article covers the company and Lord Word Worm.
If we want to follow GNG completely "to the letter", there's a requirement of multiple sources "...so that we can write a reasonably balanced article", but no requirement for multiple independent reliable sources. If this were not the case, then the "in the absence of multiple sources" footnote would be contradictory.
The GNG doesn't warrant deletion of the article. However, I don't believe the decision to keep the article should be based strictly on the GNG. Rather, the GNG should be a guide. I believe Wiki's Fifth Pillar "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is more important. It indicates "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone" and "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording."
It's likely there are other people out there like me who find Lord Word Worm appealing or are just interested in researching it. It's also likely they'll use the internet to look for a concise summary of the topic. Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? I'm confident the article is currently impartial, unbiased, accurate, neutral and doesn't contain promotional/advertising content. In this case we can confirm all of this simply by reading it. So what's the harm in keeping the article? Due to these circumstances it's not setting a bad precedent, and if no one else is interested in this topic, then at worst we've wasted a few kilobytes of storage. Michaelstevensoz (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_Word_Worm&oldid=1254826092"