RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/New Games movement

New Games movement | Result: Keep[edit]

Unclear missionality. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This does not seem to be on misson. ClickerClock 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks quite missional to me. Bicycle^wheel 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems perfectly on mission to me too. The only problem is that it's completely unreferenced. And since most of it was written four years ago by an editor who hasn't edited here for two years, I don't suppose that's going to be fixed. Spud (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Blimey, Secret Squirrel! whatever happened to him? Bicycle^wheel 17:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually appears quite missional to me, though the article does need help. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything woo-ish about cooperative play, but I know lots of people consider it hippy insanity or an affront against nature, so to that extent it's definitely on mission. I added some links at the end of the article. The organisation still exists[1] and there's a wikipedia article The New Games Book. Annquin (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep PBfreespace (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Feels like something quite stupid that should be in our remit. I remember playing very boring "cooperative" games at a school run by weird Quaker hippies with personal issue, Community was one. The point was ... there was no point. I'm not sure anyone played it twice - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I've no problem with covering the stupidity underlying the games (eg, Esalen Inst.). But why cover the games themselves? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Illustrative examples are often helpful, and only one game is described in detail. Bicycle^wheel 10:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Mm. That's fair. I still think it'd be better to cover them in the main article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)