Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knockout (violent game)

:{{la|Knockout (violent game)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knockout_(violent_game) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Knockout (violent game)}})

This is not an article describing "knockout" outside of the first sentence. It's just a glorified list of violent attacks attributed to the "game" as it has been reported in recent news media, with a violation of WP:NPOV by focusing on the conservative media and not introducing any other view points (if they even exist). —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• SNOW Keep Clearly fulfills WP:notability criteria. On another afd, Ryulong has clearly revealed his agenda[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWhite_Girl_Bleed_a_Lot&diff=582954424&oldid=582941171] of deleting whatever he believes is associated with "right wing nut jobs". Simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If s/he believes there are NPOV issues, s/he is welcome to address them in the appropriate fashion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :You cannot demand a "SNOW Keep" when you are the first commenter. And no, it does not fulfill WP:N. It's just a list of attacks by African American youths on people where the intent was to render the target unconscious with a single strike. Wikipedia is not the news to inform people what this is. And stop violating WP:AGF by automatically assuming that I am violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT (an essay and not actual policy). I have raised actual arguments against this article's inclusion on this website, as well as the other one. If we cannot have a subject free from bias then we should not cover it because we are not providing our readers with information that is relevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The article certainly seems descriptive of "knockout" as a whole. The list of events is descriptive and helpful. The attention it has received in the media, and the role it plays in the conservative agenda, is a major part of the "game"'s identity, and therefore necessary to a useful description. Like many social phenomena, its meaning is derived in large part by its context within society. I personally came to the article because I did not understand some of the oblique social references made in social media, and wanted to be educated. If the article had lacked description of the conservative depiction of the "game", I would not have come away able to understand those references. The article can certainly stand some improvement, but is genuinely useful now, and does not deserve deletion. TTK (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :It still stands that WP:GNG must be met. A bunch of news articles on unrelated assaults does not make an article, particularly when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knockout_%28violent_game%29&diff=582980695&oldid=582978201 it is half of the article] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knockout_(violent_game)&diff=582835760&oldid=582802691 other content was removed for not meeting WP:NPOV].—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• ::I just looked at every single word in WP:GNG, and could not see how the subject could be construed to fail to meet it. What specifically do you believe causes this subject to fail to meet the GNG criterion? TTK (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :::"Significant coverage", as articles only discuss assaults with single mentions of a "knockout game" peppered through them, does not meet this. The article is inventing this phenomenon just as it goes along. Certainly, an article that just exists to frame a list of assaults wherein the supposed goal of the attack was not to rob or murder but are part of an alleged game does not fit in with what Wikipedia is for.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• ::::That does not seem to be the case. Plugging "knockout game" into google-news comes up with 110,000 hits, several of which are articles talking about "knockout game" as a subject of investigation, debate, and/or legal inquiry, not simply to describe a particular assault. These are three such articles from just the first page of hits: [http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/knockout-game-sucker-punches-have-turned-deadly_61991932 "Police across the U.S. are investigating whether random attacks are part of a violent game called knockout,"], and: [http://rt.com/usa/knockout-game-spreading-federal-help-165/ "Violent knockout attacks – where people randomly approach strangers on the street and punch them in the head – are spreading across the United States, and New York State lawmakers are asking the federal government for help"], and: [http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/thugs-target-jews-in-sick-knockout-game/ "New York City police authorities are investigating a series of unprovoked physical attacks in public places on people who are Jewish, in the form of what is called the knockout game.”]. TTK (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :::::I may be incorrect in my determination of whether or not this article does or does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. That's what this discussion will find out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :And how come this article only focuses on assults perpetrated by black American youths when [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511302/Teenager-wildly-attacking-strangers-street-days-murdered-man-single-punch-personalised-bomb-attack.html British white boys are doing the exact same thing]?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• ::If it's about knockout, then just add it to the article then! It's Wikipedia -- you have the power! If I had seen the article earlier I would have added it myself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Has been consistently and repeatedly on the media for many weeks now with records going back more than 20 years and has long been an aspect reported in various papers and official sources, but only recently gaining prolonged national recognition, conservative or otherwise. I first found this article almost two weeks ago and while I am not active its formation, I did feel that it merited GNG by google and news checks - and the fact that it was on TV and was why I looked it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :We've not covered content that the media has covered for several weeks because it's a slow period in the news cycle and every tom, dick, and jane got their 15 minutes of fame.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Has been reported repeatedly as of late. Many reliable sources and Ryulong appears to have an ideological issue with this article. Arzel (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• :Please remember to assume good faith. Claiming I am ideologically against the article is a vast misinterpretation of my actions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:25, 23 November 2013 (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.