Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lap circle (2nd nomination)

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. Essentially, nobody else agreed that the sources produced showed by the sole "keep" vote demonstrated that a suitable article can be written on this topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lap circle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was kept (well, closed as no consensus) in the glorious days of 2006 when mere existence could be a sufficient grounds for voting keep. We've come a long way since then, so it's high time to re-evaluate this.

I was not able to find any in-depth reliable sources about this concept, and I searched reasonably thoroughly - I checked "lap circle" and "lap sit" on their own, then with +team, +game, and +trust. The most I found were primary sources providing rules - books with titles like "82 Games to Play With Your Kids" and similar things. These are not in-depth and are not secondary sources, considering that they merely provide instructions on how to perform a lap circle, without any analysis or commentary on the concept of a lap circle (which would make them secondary). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referred to as Lap Sit or lap game or Human Chair. This is a team building exercise to foster trust and cooperation. Used in business setting or as a youth activity. I added sources and improved the intro, along with layout and added references, including formatting the existing reference. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The refs you added are hardly in-depth reliable secondary sources. The Game Gal is a self-published blog so it's not reliable for notability claims, the Ability Magazine article spends about three sentences discussing the concept while the rest of the article is substantially about something else, and the Jubed page is another primary-source instructional on how to do the game. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple team building/icebreaker used in retreats for business people. Used by teachers, camp directors or facilitators to foster cooperation or to break the ice among participants. There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - just as there is not in depth coverage of other such activities ie Human knot, Two truths, one lie, etc. I find that this is a relevant and notable team building exercise. Reasonable editors may disagree and !vote accordingly. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And look! One of those articles you linked is a redirect to a different article, and one of them is tagged as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline".ApLundell (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is merged. I can link to many more as I did below: I have already spent too much time on this but I accept your challenge. There is no in depth coverage for these team building games so perhaps you can AfD or redirect them as well? Hot potato, Hunt the Thimble, Dizzy bat, Questions (game), Musical chairs, Would you rather, Pass the parcel Lightburst (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Surely, as veteran of deletion discussions you're aware of that?

But to answer your question : Yes. If there's no useful sources, there's no justification for an article. ApLundell (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There will not be any in-depth coverage on this subject - that is effectively an admission that we should not have an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable game. Redirect to "Icebreaker" (as was done with a similar article Lightburst links to above.) None of the sources establish notability, and none seem likely to be found. ApLundell (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is actually more of a merge since the "Two truths, one lie" is explained on the Icebreakers article. We have room for such articles. WP:NOTPAPER here are two more such games.

Big difference - there are in-depth sources abundantly available about show and tell. JSTOR returns 3458 hits about show and tell from all kinds of reliable academic sources focused on childrens' education. Even if we limit ourselves to the first page alone, we're well clear of GNG with plenty of critical analysis and commentary. The same simply cannot be said of the lap game (4 hits, all trivial), circle (2 hits, all trivial), sit (25 hits, all trivial). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked Look at totality and see the rule instead of the exception. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I cherry pick? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use a different search term Lightburst (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No results found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly game - in practice it takes about five minutes. This is not War and Peace with academic interpretation and secondary sources. I think we have managed to spend too much time on this. I did my best in the article. I leave it to the other editors who find their way. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've actually noticed this one before while patrolling orphaned articles, and was never able to actually find any in-depth sources that would actually indicate notability. There is certainly stuff out there that shows that WP:ITEXISTS, but that is not a valid reason to keep an article. Even the sources introduced in this AFD are nothing more than instructions for how to do it. Rorshacma (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:19, 4 December 2019 (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.