Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUME

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. We can interpret the notability guideline and make exceptions whenever there is consensus to do so, but we do not make excepts to WP:Verifiability; there have to be some sources to verify the material beyond personal knowledge. Such sources might well meet the GNG also, but we have to have them. When you can find them, you can rewrite the article using them. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUME

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

Looks like a neologism; cannot find any reliable, secondary, broad coverage sources on the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. Material appears to be WP:OR or indirectly relevant to the topic; the game examples do not mention this term in their articles. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a novel coinage by the article author. No currency in reliable sources; unreliable sources (like urban dictionary) do not match the context claimed here either. Article creator removed the AFD template from the article page, but I have restored it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about removing the bit at the top - I didn't know it was put there deliberately. This is the first time I've added content to wikipedia, and I wasn't sure what was had happened when I reloaded it.

Apparently this page is where were discuss the article. So to address your concerns: I can't cite any references, and I can't trace where the term came from. But it is a term which we (friends and I) use to describe this genre of game. I learned it from them, and they learned the term from others. I have no idea where it originated. So while it may not be a frequently used term, it is certainly in use.

My first point of argument: You say there are no references -- References are meant for verifying that stated facts are provably true. Nomenclature isn't provable; it's just comes into existence through use, and as such there isn't anything to cite.

My second point of argument: Encyclopedias would be slow to progress if they were only allowed to publish material that is already common knowledge. It's okay to publish content that is little known for the benefit others, just as it's okay to introduce nomenclature that is infrequently used, (or is used by a subset of society), similarly for the benefit of others.

My third point of argument: The fact that starcraft et al don't call themselves BUME games is irrelevant. Classifications are allowed to be applied retrospectively, and they regularly are. For example, Dune 2 didn't call itself an RTS game when it was published, yet it is currently categorised into that genre on wikipedia because the classification is done retrospectively. -- jzds80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzds80 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are making a common mistake when addressing AfD notability (as used on Wikipedia) concerns. Article existence on Wikipedia requires it to pass WP:GNG -- which is multiple, reliable, secondary sources with broad coverage of the topic. This really is all that is to it. Unfortunately, it does not matter whether you think this is common knowledge; that is original research. Also remember to sign with ~~~~. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>>> it does not matter whether you think this is common knowledge. I never suggested that this was ... I'm guessing that you've misunderstood what I wrote because English is not your native language, so let me rephrase it: My second point of argument was that being common knowledge (or not) is irrelevant. Encyclopedias should help lesser known things become better known, rather than only document things that are already well known.

I can understand the need for guidelines, but they should not be treated as rigid sets of rules that obstruct progress. That'd be counterproductive and bureaucratic. It's similar to how the spirit of the law should be more important than the letter of the law. The guidelines are intended to be flexible, for oiling the gears, and facilitating the sharing of knowledge... That's the objective of an encyclopedia, and that's all I'm trying to do here. Jzds80 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC) jzds80[reply]

None of your points address the notability guideline (GNG), which takes precedence over all your other arguments. This discussion will not change how the whole website treats neologisms. Reiterating for the third time: unless you provide reliable, secondary, non-dictionary references of significant coverage, this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I've already taken more time to reply to you than most editors would ever bother. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable term. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2011 (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.