Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone)

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. Despite a long and spirited defense of this article's creator, the consensus here is to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Risk (clone)

Risk (clone) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. Strange article which aims to provide a complicated theoretical rationale for an utterly trivial idea, namely that you can use the word "clone" to describe a copy of a game. Probably created with the aim of promoting Xisk, one of the game sites referred to in the external links section. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and possibly WP:SPAM andy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like a brief defending the legality under copyright law of a game copy. Loved the "time travel" argument but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. There's the germ of an idea in here - that certain games introduce a basic gameplay that is then the basis for numerous others. However, even if such an article could ever be written encyclopedically, nothing in this would be salvegable. So, delete.--Korruski^Talk 14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, the entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to define and document term Risk (clone) which has been in use by Risk players for many years now. The term is very relevant today and deserves it's own article.

Some of the information in the article previously lived in the Risk (game) article but was removed for various reasons (some stupid, some legitimate). Hopefully much of that very useful lost information will find it's way back into the Risk (clone) article where it belongs.

As the Risk (clone) article states, the purpose of a Risk (clone) is NOT to be the same as Risk and in fact in all cases, the exact opposite is sought.

I refer you to the IBM_PC article, specifically the history of the term PC clone where every ma an pop were cloning the original artifact. There is a reason they were called clones - they were NOT identical - if they were they'd've been called 'PC COPIES'.

In the land of copyright you are allowed to 'clone' the source idea. But you may not 'copy' already published copyrighted expressions of said idea. Risk clones are expressions of the generic platonic non-copyrightable IDEA of Risk. They are NOT copies of 1959 expressed published materials.

Just as there ended up being more PC clones than actual IBM pc's, there are more Risk clones than actual Hasbro licensed variants. And there are more players playing Risk clones (on a daily basis) than there are playing the actual game of Risk.

Legally, Risk is no different than Chess and Checkers. Anybody can legally make a Risk clone as long as they do not re-use any of the Hasbro published materials.

I'd suggest also adding Risk (variants) to the disambiguation list and redirect to the Risk (clone) article.

The commercialization argument does not hold water, the Risk (game) article is a shrine to the Hasbro commercialized versions Risk. There are some of you that are failing to understand that Hasbro does not have the soul exclusive monolpoly to commericialize expressions of Risk. Yes they (Parker Brothers) were the first to express the idea of Risk. But doing so does not prevent others from also expressing Risk. If you delete this article for commercial/copyright reasons, then you are being hypocritical and you are persuing a policy that does not agree with United States Copyright laws.

The term Risk (clone) is very legitimate and deserves it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: the following line appears in the Risk (game) article "There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially." This is clearly referring to what are known as Risk (clones).

IDEAS are cloned. MATERIALS are copied. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Risk (clone) article contributes to the clarification of what is and is not a violation of copyright using real world examples. The article has real world value for any reader seeking to understand the difference between an IDEA and an EXPRESSION of an idea. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia article Lux_(video_game) is a Risk (clone) which is fine. But we need an article that clearly defines what a Risk (clone) is, specifically that they are legal and do not need the consent of Hasbro. --Riitoken (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do to rescue this article is to concisely show the notability of the term, through its use and explanation in reliable sources. Explaining at great length why you personally think it is important is, unfortunately, no substitute.--Korruski^Talk 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure original research, has no sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to document the already existing phrase being used by the internet community. The term is not new and has existed for some time. There is no way to know when it was first used but I know that I personally heard the term back at the beginning of the IBM pc era in the 80's. The article has merit because it documents the populist term already in use. Here are 6 hits from a google search for the term "risk clone": http://www.baumanfamily.com/john/risk.html http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskonline/Risk_Online_and_Computer_Versions.htm http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48539 http://demonews.com/thread104-1.html http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/flash+risk+clone+freeware/ http://touchreviews.net/pocket-world-war-risk-clone/ The article is NOT doing original research on the term. It is merely documenting what has already transpired in the modern lingo of the internet. Sometimes wikipedia IS the authoritative place to learn what a popular term means - certainly in this instance. Now if any of you disagree with how the article describes the already existing term then please EDIT THE ARTICLE with your changes, but do not delete the article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Riitoken, have you read the links I provided you above to WP:RS and WP:Notability?--Korruski^Talk 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Korruski, yes I have. I would gladly document the term Risk clone as soon as we can find the entity with the authority to define the term. This is one of these rarer instances where the standard wikipedia OR guidelines are net helpful to the wikipedia community. I chose not to include the google hits as references because the links seems a bit transient and some of the pages were product ads. Nevertheless, the term itself is being used and has been used for years. It is time that for a wikipedia article that documents the meaning of the popular usage of the term. Read the opening line of the article and see that it properly describes the phrase and that sentence is useful to readers who simply want a nice reference point for the term. --Riitoken (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned WP:OR. Google hits are not adequate references, as you yourself point out. You say you have read WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY, yet you continue to ignore these policies. Until you can come forward with an argument for keeping the article that is rooted in policy, and not in your own opinion, there seems little point in debating the matter further.--Korruski^Talk 03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As of 2011-Jan-14 google is showing 25,700 page hits for the exact phrase "risk clone" --Riitoken (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Compare the number of hits for "Asteroids clone", "Space invaders clone", and so on. We don't need to have (and should not have) articles for all of these, because this is really just one concept (cloning) being applied to many different games. We only need one article for clones in general. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ollie your point is noted and I've suggested above that we add Risk (variant) to the disambiguation. Consider the other pages like Chess and Checkers that have their own variants WP article. These Risk variants previously tried to live on the Risk (game) page but were rejected because they were not officially licensed ... nevertheless they deserve mention. And the Risk (clone) page is the place to do it. --Riitoken (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll go on record now and say that when the number of published Risk variants matches the number of Chess variants, I'll support an article on Risk variants. I imagine this will take quite some time, though. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Google this phrase what is a risk clone? and see that the first hit is a reference to Risk (game) (the original) and the second hit is a reference to Risk (clone) and that is as it should be. The two article combined serve the reader fully. --Riitoken (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge any encyclopedic material to a new section Risk (game)#Clones, and move this page to the new title Risk clone redirecting to that new section; delete the resulting double-redirect page Risk (clone), whose mistaken pseudo-disambiguation name (this is not about something called "Risk" that is a clone) is an unlikely search title.  --Lambiam 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lambiam, might I remind you that the Risk (game) article used to have a large selection devoted to clones and variants. And then there was a huge edit war and all of clone type info got evicted from the article. There was, for a time, an unofficial list of risk games article but that got removed as well. Hasbro now gets a free shrine for every commercial product released under Risk license. Meanwhile none of the legal legitimate clones get zero mention anywhere. But this isn't just about mentioning Risk clones; it's also about all of the useful Risk related info that got removed from the Risk page in the edit war. Hopefully some of that content can find a place to live on the Risk (clone) page. The Risk clone article is the best place to document the world of Risk clones. It does not belong on the Official Hasbro Risk page and Hasbro does not want it there. --Riitoken (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the alternative is Delete. If all the material that is not based on reliable sources is deleted from this article, not even enough remains for a stub. When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of? I couldn't find anything indicating an edit war in the article history of Risk (game) or its talk page and talk page archive. Are you referring to the deletion discussion for List of unofficial Risk versions? That was a regular discussion, not an edit war. In any case, this article is not the solution. I'm confident a reasonable amount of verifiable material on Risk clones can be added to and kept in Risk (game).  --Lambiam 13:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The only line of this article which is verifiable is "It is not possible to copyright or patent an idea." The rest represents unsourced original research which is quite interesting to gamers but not appropriate for an encyclopedia whose purpose is to record and disseminate information, not discover it. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Content fork of various sections of the main article, including Risk (game)#Official licensed Risk games. SnottyWong ^yak 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Objection I refer all of you to the following two excerpts from the Risk (game) page:

"There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially. See the Risk (clone) article for more information."

"In addition, there are many unofficial Risk clones, both for download and online play. Due to the history of the game's creation, there are no IP protections on the game, other than a US trademark on the word RISK when written in the distinctive red font ."

And I ask any of you to refer me to the Wikipedia rules that, allow Hasbro to enshrine every commercially licensed instance of a Risk based work, but disallow a similar shrine to legitimate Risk (clones). Furthermore, given that these two excerpts remain in the Risk (game) article, where EXACTLY is the reader supposed to learn more about the history of Risk clones with the expected Wikipedia Neutral Point of View?

I again remind all of you that the list of unofficial clones used to live on the Risk (game) page but were evicted in the giant edit war last year.

And to Ollie, yes there SHOULD be a page for Asteroids (clone) and Space Invaders (clone) assuming there is a wikipedia writer/editor willing to start those articles and there is something legitimate to say within those articles and assuming the article can be written from the neutral pov. --Riitoken (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You totally ignore the issue that the article does not conform to the policies of Wikipedia. If you want these policies changed, fine, go ahead, make the case for changing them — not here, but at the Village Pump or on the talk pages for these policies. But as long as they are as they are, we should not make an exception for these clones, however crucially important it may be for the world to be able to partake of this information.  --Lambiam 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree see Objections below --Riitoken (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update I rewrote the copyright section. The time travel thing is entirely based on the legal concept of the subtractive test which is a valid legal concept - I added 2 references for this. I am trying to find the ref. for the time travel example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• KeepThe "Modding" and Cloning of games is becoming more and more popular. This is a legitimate area for information and discussion. I would disagree with Ollie who wants to hold the "Number of Chess variants" up as the threshold. Chess has existed for thousands of years, and there are untold number of variants. For people who are interested in clones, I can see no reason why Wikipedia can't be a source of information about those mods and clones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.2.79 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — 71.59.2.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Objection There are no WP:SPAM issues in the Risk (clone) article. There is nothing being promoted or sold ... there is in fact less WP:SPAM in the Risk (clone) article than in the Risk (game) article where every single Risk based product listed there has commercial profit based motive. --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Objection There are no WP:OR issues in the Risk (clone) article. The time travel test is a legitimate method for expressing/implementing the subtraction test for infringement (which is a legal concept with references). --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  The application of copyright law to software copyright is not straightforward (see, e.g., Sega v. Accolade), and we should avoid making pronouncements about when a Risk clone does or does not infringe on the Risk copyright unless we can give a citation to a reliable source for them. However, this issue is not immediately relevant for this AfD discussion.  --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Objection There are no WP:RS issues in the Risk (clone) article. There are no unreliable sources and/or references. --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is that there is a lack of reliable sources.  --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Objection There are no WP:N issues in the Risk (clone) article. I agree that any one individual clone might not be noteworthy enough to merit it's own Wikipedia article. But COLLECTIVELY, the entire congregation of Risk clones is most definitely notable and worthy of an article with a neutral point of view that discusses the entire collection of clones. --Riitoken (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  If that is the case, you should be able to cite reliable sources that discuss the concept of "Risk clone" is some depth (and not just mention it in passing). The content of the article can then be based on what is said in these sources. Without such sources, the content of the article is unverifiable.  --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lambiam, you're being obtuse. How does anybody define a term that is already in the collective language and has been for years? As I've already said I first heard the term Risk clone back in the 80's. Furthermore ... tell me WHO has the authority to define something that's already in use by the collective population of online Risk players? (rhetorical:nobody). The article defines the term as is being already used in the lingo. It does not redefine the term. It just states what's already a fact. However, if anybody (any Risk player) were to happen along and take issue with the way it's defined in the article then, they might, in the spirit of Wikipedia, edit the article for better wording. But if that doesn't happen then we can assume that those who already know what the term means are agreeing with the article by NOT making an edit. How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? This is one of those situations where it's perfectly fine for Wikipedia to simply report the facts with neutral pov - which is exactly what the article does. --Riitoken (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? Not by doing original research on the topic and then writing it up as an article on Wikipedia. All I'm trying to do is apply established Wikipedia policy to the issue of whether your article should be kept; your objections appear (to me) to ignore the gist of our policies and therefore come out as irrelevant. The concept of "authority" plays no role in our policies; that of "reliable source" does. I've probably heard the term "conclusive argument" long before you first heard the term "Risk clone", but that does not mean I can just start an article in which I write up my understanding of that term as I've encountered it. Instead, if I want to contribute an article about that concept, I need to find reliable sources that have written in some depth about it, and summarize in encyclopedic terms what they have to say.  --Lambiam 10:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a sincere job of trying to defend the policy. However, consider this opening line in the PC_clone article "Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture". This is an UNCITED statement nor can it be cited with a reliable source ... because nobody has the authority to be a reliable source for something the collective is ALREADY DOING. In other words ... everyone who was alive during the PC revolution already understood the term PC clone so much so that nobody has thought to tag the article reference with the CN tag - and why is that? rhetorical: because the collective mind/lingo IS the reliable eye witness source and that is plain and acceptable to everyone reading the article. There is no original research here. To some degree, all of Wikipedia is neutral fact based reporting on what the collective mind already knows to be true. If You cry foul over the term Risk clone then you need to do the same for the term PC clone to be consistent in you position. I grant you that the term PC clone is more notable than the term Risk clone but that does not mean that Risk clone is not notable. --Riitoken (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to clear up a point of confusion: 'reliable' in terms of Wikipedia policy has a specific (jargon) definition, which you can read here. It has nothing to do with authority - a source being 'reliable' just means that it was independently published by some organization with a reputation for doing decent fact checking. Original research has a Wikipedia specific meaning as well - it is anything you just wrote down yourself without following a source. Since you admit that your article is uncited (as you claim it cannot be cited), then it is by definition original research. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Point me to the reliable source that fact checked the term PC clone. It is unacceptable to reject google as an unreliable source for collective behavior (facts) seeing as the relevance of page sorting is decided by quantity of collective reference. The truth of the term Risk clone does NOT become more or less reliable just because some individual or group publishes something on the subject. Nor would it mean that they were the first to use the term. The term Risk clone is there and has been there for over 3 decades. I know this the same way I know that the term PC clone has been used for over 3 decades. The terms are accurate by simple repeatable observation - which is about as scientific as it gets. I didn't need a reliable source to tell me this. --Riitoken (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That another article has bad sourcing does not mean that Risk (clone) should have bad sourcing as well. Your objections to the WP:RS guideline are noted, but the fact remains that if you want this article to be kept, you will need to edit it to be in compliance. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to MrOllie's remarks (with which I fully agree), it is actually easy enough to find reliable sources for the term "PC clone": Boston Globe (December 4, 1983), Atlanta Journal (December 23, 1985), Seven Principles that Drive Corporate Value in any Economy (2003; ISBN 0-7879-6604-5), Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (2007; ISBN 978-0-8018-8774-1), and so on.  --Lambiam 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my PC_clone argument. I never said there was bad sourcing for the term PC_cone. I said that it was a case where sourcing wasn't needed because anyone involved in the PC revolution already knew what it meant. The same thing applies to the phrase Risk clone in that anybody involved in the world of online Risk knows what that means without ever having a reference as a reliable source - the collective is a reliable source. Once the initiate begins looking for various places to play Risk online, they are guaranteed to bump into the phrase Risk clone often and after having seen the term used the same way for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th and Nth time, they don't need a reference - the collective online mind was the reference. Try hunting for online Risk sites without encountering the phrase Risk clone - impossible. Wikipedia serves the public interest by providing an article explaining Risk clones and some of the more notable sites with the expected WP:NPOV.

• Update I have removed the Time travel test until I can find a solid academic ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Update I have changed the legal wording in the List of Risk clones section. After re-reading some of the arguments here, I now admit and agree that Wikipedia is not the place to pronounce any given Risk clone as legal unless we have an official cite stating such. However, Wikipedia is also NOT the place to declare a Risk clone to be illegal just because the clone is not an official Hasbro licensee. Hasbro bears the burden to defends it's copyright (not Wikipedia or it's editors). We should also recognize that Hasbro is the definitive authority on exactly what has been officially licensed and that list is very well documented on the Hasbro shrine for commercialized Risk (game) - and for this reason I say it is best to not sully their shrine with the notable clones for which they have no commercial interest. However, legal Risk clones have been around for 30 years or more and they deserve their own article - the commercial interests of Hasbro be damned. --Riitoken (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep no-merge I refer all of you to this markup comment from the Risk_game#Official_licensed_Risk_games "This section is for OFFICIAL implementations only. Do NOT add any unofficial "Risk" clones no matter how popular they might be. If in doubt, bring it up on the talk page first." . So two things to say here: 1) somebody wanting to assert authority over that list stamped the markup comment. 2) that same editor used the term Risk clone and recognized the fact that some Risk clones are NOTABLE. --Riitoken (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  Of course one should not add unlicensed Risk clones under the heading "Officially licensed Risk games", but I can't see an objection to listing other notable but unlicensed Risk clones in a new section Risk (game)#Other clones.  --Lambiam 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  Lambiam, you're not listening. We aready tried a section for "unofficial clones" and it was strongly opposed by those who feel that the Risk (game) article be devoted to the "official" Hasbro game. I for one, used to be a supporter of having the clone list maintained there - but I have since changed my mind. We also tried a separate article called "Unofficial List of Risk games" (or something very close to that) and it was also evicted by various editors for being just a shrine list (similar to the shrine inside the Risk (game) article). The Risk (clone) article can be encyclopediac in it's own right and it can and will have a WP:NPOV given enough time and enough input by those motivated to watch over the article. The problem has been that everytime this collective participation begins to happen some !bleeping wiki admin removes the bleeping section or page (and that kills the willingness of voluntary participation). Leave it the bleep alone and give it time; I'm not the only editor with expert knowledge; there are others out there, but they have to first believe that all of their writing and contribution isn't going to get bleeping deleted (harsh abusive language omitted). --Riitoken (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  I asked above: 'When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of?', but did not see a reply. Can you give a date on which the Risk article contained a section for "unofficial clones"?  --Lambiam 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Lambiam, quite frankly, I'm trying to forget the experience. There are others who gave up on Wikipedia at that time - they were attempting to make a contribution to that page and kept getting deleted, reverted, undone, etc. If you really care then search through the history for edits made by 'Riitoken' and others. I personally do not care to help edit that page ever again other than to add the links to Risk (clone) for the 2 places where other "unofficial" clones are mentioned. We tried again when the unofficial risk game article was started and were shot down again. Most of them now have a "screw you" Wikipedia attitude. So I am trying yet a third time to make the case that the Risk (clone) editors/enthusiasts should have their own article to write the WP:NPOV for Risk clones separate from the Hasbro copyright protected content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  If you mean the section removed in this edit, I think it was rightly removed, as it was an unencyclopedic linkfarm with a complete lack of citations from reliable sources and no means to distinguish the notable from the totally non-notable. As I wrote before, I don't think there would be an objection to listing notable Risk clones, such as have their own Wikipedia articles.  --Lambiam 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that the "unofficial list" does not belong in the Risk (game) article. It belongs in the Risk (clone) article. You'll also notice that not all of the clones in the edit section you referenced did not get mentioned on the Risk (clone) page. It will be up to the Risk (clone) editors as to what is notable enough to mention as a Risk clone and those editors will be avid players of Risk and Risk clones and/or makers of Risk clones. I qualify in all 3 categories. Do you? --Riitoken (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  You don't understand. The reason it did not belong in the Risk (game) article is that this list does not belong in an encyclopedia, period. That is the meaning of "unencyclopedic". If an article cannot exist without such an unencyclopedic list, the article does not belong on Wikipedia. See What Wikipedia is not. What is acceptable is a reasonably sized list of notable Risk clones. Almost all clones on the list that was removed are not notable (in the sense as defined by Wikipedia).  --Lambiam 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  We are just not going to agree here. I've seen what happens when "unofficial" clones get mentioned on the Risk (game) page. There are many readers not involved in this current debate who will immediately remove/revert any such list in the name of purity and loyalty. The concensus was that the Risk (game) page be reserved for only the commercially licensed products and the commercial interests of Hasbro. I used to oppose this concensus but I now support it. However, if Hasbro is going to be given a free commercial shrine to every profit motivated Risk based product they've ever made, then, at a minimum, the non Hasbro licensed Risk clones should get a shrine of appropriate magnitude, otherwise you and any other editor in this debate are by default being hypocritical and you bear the burden to explain why a Hasbro licensed products get mentioned and the "unlicensed" products do not. One central purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to draw attention to the world of Risk clones and NOT the world of Hasbro products. What is your justification for granting attention to Hasbro products but not allowing attention for Risk clones? What is your justification for wanting all notable Risk clones to be mentioned on the Hasbro centric Risk game article where attention is drawn to Hasbro commercial products? If drawing attention to viable Risk clones is "unencyclopediac" then drawing any attention to Hasbro products is equally "unencyclopediac". Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam? --Riitoken (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete bizarre content fork, with most of the article being a silly legal defence of why the "clones" are supposedly not illegal. Simply put, this isn't encyclopedia material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Andrew, the copyright info is there because, while Hasbro would have everyone believe that they own the idea of Risk, the U.S. copyright office disagrees. Having actually spoken with Hasbro attorney's and having been served cease and desist letters, I'd say I know WTF I'm talking about. Explaining why Risk clones are not infringements is not silly ... however, not understanding why (apparently in your case) is silly. Commenting on your own ignorance in a debate is even worse. --Riitoken (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  No personal attacks, please.  --Lambiam 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Lambiam, no personal attack was leveled. Andrew is simply mis-informed if he thinks the copyright section is 'silly' and/or irrelevant. Where Risk and Risk clones are concerned, it is VERY relevant. I am simply challenging the notion that Hasbro is the authority who gets to decide what is or is not an infringing Risk clone; Poor Boy Risk definitely is not and they know it and I know they know it. I am also challenging the notion they they get to decide whether or not "unofficial" notable Risk clones are mentioned on Wikipedia. Remember the list of "unofficial" Risk clones have been evicted from the Risk (game) article at least twice now because they were "unofficial". --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  You appear to have a quite curious idea of the extent of the authority of Hasbro. I can assure you with total confidence that Hasbro has no authority whatsoever to decide what content is acceptable in our Risk (game) article. There is only one authority for that: the consensus of the Wikipedia community. The list of unofficial Risk variants was removed from the article simply because it was unencyclopedic material, as I've explained above.  --Lambiam 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for saying this out loud. As the Purpose section indicates, the Risk (clone) article is not about any one individual Risk clone, it is about the collective Cult following of those who play and make Risk clones. It may be that any given clone isn't notable enough for it's own solo WP article but that does not mean it can't be discussed in a historical section in the main Risk (clone) article. And I'm going on record to say that the only Wikipedia editors who get to decide what is 'notable' are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. If you qualify then good; I am definitely qualified. Those that don't play Risk or Risk clones or have never made a Risk clone are less qualified to settle the 'notability' issue - doing so would be the same as if I were to comment on what was notable in the world of Gay/Lesbian fashion. --Riitoken (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Should only actual communists be allowed to edit the article Communism? Whether you like it or not, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit; what counts in case of a content dispute is the quality of arguments (in the context of the principles and policies of Wikipedia), irrespective of the credentials or qualifications of the discussants making these arguments (unless you're User:Jimbo Wales speaking ex cathedra).  --Lambiam 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Communism and anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Risk (clone). However, deciding who/what is 'notable' in the history of communism is not something I would do and neither should you unless you are an expert in that area. Each of us have areas where we bring expert knowledge. I happen to be an expert on Risk clones and copyright issues regarding such which is why I started the article. Risk has a Cult following of enthusiasts who play and make what are known as Risk clones; it's the same type of cult following found amongst Trekkie's and this Risk cult following is worthy of it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  We don't decide what is notable in the field of risk clones. We rely on third party sources to do it for us - that it why we keep asking for them. That is how Wikipedia works. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Riitoken, if anything the opposite is true: people with conflicts of interest regarding a topic are frequently banned from editing that topic on the grounds that they are not able to write objectively. Just like we wouldn't want a card-carrying neo-Nazi to write our article on Hitler, neither do we want someone who has apparently been threatened with legal action by Hasbro to write about Risk, for what I certainly hope are obvious reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The term "Risk clone" does not appear in reliable sources, even allowing for game-related ones. For what we're looking for for "gametype clone" articles, please see Grand Theft Auto clone where the term is strongly-defined in sources, including the elements that set up the GTA clone game, and the fact that GTA really isn't the first game to have those features, and notable games that are called clones. While we wouldn't expect as much depth to other articles at the start, the existence of this type of information relating to Risk clones are necessary. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Masem, I am confident that reliable sources will be found over time. Wikipedia is a publically edited work. It will take more than one editor (myself) to find reliable sources. All of you know that WP articles grow and expand and evolve over time. This article needs public attention and a chance to live long enough such that it can be fed by the collective mind the same way that all WP content is served. Deleting this article too early is a mistake and does not serve the Wikipedia readers specifically those readers who are looking for a WP:NPOV neutral point of view for non Hasbro Risk clones. The article should remain and we can tag it with a 'more sources needed' banner that will invite all readers to help with the edits (and that's the true spirit of Wikipedia as it was first founded). I for one am not a fan of this new wave of anal editors who are more excied about being policeman and tagging and attacking stub articles, than they are about letting things live and grow into excellent content. Shame on all of you; you kill the spirit of Wikipedia and worsen the experience for those trying to contribute. Wikipedia is about serving the Wikipedia reader and not about serving the anal retentive needs of it's editors and admins. --Riitoken (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have already been asked not to make personal attacks. I have now placed a warning on your Talk page. andy (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it's not a personal attack to tell Andrew that he's flat out wrong. Getting your feelings hurt because you were wrong doesn't mean you were personally attacked; it means you were wrong. Also, I do genuinely miss the old days of Wikipedia when everything was new and growing like crazy and there were tons of unwritten articles and the editors knew the value of just letting stubs and fledglings exist and wait for volunteers to get involved and make it better. The current state of Wikipedia specifically this debate does not feel the way Wikipedia used to be; it's not a personal attack for me to say this out loud; it's my personal pov.--Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Purpose The purpose of the Risk (clone) article is:

a) to document the term Risk clone that has been used for 30+ years.

b) to offer clarity about the rules of copyright infringement (regardless of the Hasbro non-neutral pov).

c) to discuss Risk clones with a WP:NPOV neutral pov (which is what Risk clone players want).

d) to list some of the notable clones and their histories.

e) to intentionally be a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests.

f) to invite other Risk clone makers to become editors of the article.

The article can meet these goals while upholding the high standards of Wikipedia. The article will only become better as real clone makers/players volunteer to edit the content - because they are the real 'Policeman' who can decide the WP:NPOV for Risk clones. Forgive me for saying so but the only editors qualified to contribute to the WP:NPOV are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. We need to allow the article to live so we can tap that collective editorship; doing so will allow this article to make an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete As original research; a Google search is not a valid reliable source indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Update Removed the google hits line here

On 2011-Jan-16, google showed 14,700 hits for the search phrase "risk clone" -wars -high-risk -antigen --Riitoken (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not alter the structure of this page, which you did with your previous edits. Threads are shown by indentation, not by sub-headings. If you would like to tidy the page you could indent your comments properly, but please be careful that by doing so you don't de-link them from other editors' replies. andy (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Andy, I was attempting to section the page only to make editing easier - that was my only motive. --Riitoken (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update I found the usenet ref. for Poor Boy Risk. --Riitoken (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  I hate to break this to you, but this usenet posting does not count as a reliable source, and it is also not a source that is independent of the subject, so this reference contributes neither to verifiability nor to notability.  --Lambiam 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  The usenet reference verifies and cites the accuracy of the sentence that is superscripted by the reference - Poor Boy Risk is an analog paper Risk clone first described by Ray E. Bornert over a usenet board game group in 2004. This is a true sentence as evidenced by the usenet ref. in the google archive. The reference isn't supposed to verify everything Bornert said - but only that he said it and that makes it a reliable source. --Riitoken (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• You're simply not listening. Usenet cannot be used to support any assertion in an article (other than, of course, a statement such as "x is found on usenet"). You state that the usenet reference proves that Bornert first described Poor Boy Risk on usenet and is to that extent a reliable source. In fact that's 180 degrees away from being correct: since usenet is not a reliable source then the usenet reference cannot be taken as a proof of anything. This is clearly explained at WP:ABOUTSELF. Wikipedia rules on reliable sources are very clear and you should read them. andy (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Andy the reference is just an item to show source of the sentence "x" is found on usenet nothing more nothing less. It's not the only reference out there but the only one I've found so far. I'm still working on references and as other interested editors work on the article I'm sure they will collect more. --Riitoken (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

*POLL I'd like to request that all present volunteer a YES or NO answer line, with signature inside the ////// markers.

Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?

/////////////

NO --Riitoken (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

YES - Hasbro pays me big money to keep the brave rebels of the Risk clone resistance movement down. The money arrives each month in a black helicopter and is given to me by a large man in a white suit who strokes a black cat and has a monocle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

///////////// (no one needs to answer any silly poll here)

• ENDPOLL --Riitoken (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• You are being deliberately offensive to me and the other editors. Stop right now! andy (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Andy, the poll is purely voluntary. Chill man. I have no idea who any of you are and I am not suggesting that any of you work for Hasbro ... But if any of you do then you should be honest about it so that others can measure your comments in that light. And btw Andy, you opened this deletion debate by accusing me of wanting to violate the WP:SPAM policy and that offended me; but I said nothing. --Riitoken (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• You are making precisely that suggestion. For example "Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam?", "Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?", "…the Hasbro copyright protected content", "…the Hasbro non-neutral pov", "…a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests" and so on. You're obsessed about Hasbro and are prepared to insult anyone who disagrees with you. So… pay attention… stop it. And read wikipedia's guidelines on notability and reliable sources. andy (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me tell you what was NOT neutral within the history of the Risk (game) article - a concensus that the unofficial Risk clones did NOT deserve ANY notable mention anywhere, not the main article nor it's own separate unofficial list article. THAT IS/WAS NOT NEUTRAL dude. Ok so fine. The Wikipedia policy asks any article to not be only dependent on some link farm list inside that aticle. I get that (and to some degree the old list was just a list and nothing more). So I am attempting here to satisfy that policy by actually writing a worthy Risk clone article that can and should exist whether or not notable list is present. So if you see angst on my part, it is due to suggestions that 1) Risk clones do not deserve notable mention anywhere or 2) Risk clones should return to some notable list in the main article. Those suggestions OFFEND me. --Riitoken (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, if the story you told above is true (the one where you have received cease and desist letters from Hasbro's attorneys), then I'd say you have much more of a conflict of interest than anyone else at this discussion. Why don't you calm down and let the deletion discussion run its natural course? Continuing to insult people after having been warned could eventually lead to your account being blocked. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• The story is true but there is no conflict of interest; as a result of that incident I learned much about copyright law(s) and what is and is not copyright infringement. I'd like to help other would be Risk clone makers avoid the same mistakes I made and thus I am attempting to make a contribution. The poll is voluntary; I wanted it on the record that I am WP:NPOV toward Hasbro and the Risk (game) article. I seek neither to promote Hasbro commercial interest nor do I seek to harm them. I am neutral and it is not abusive to offer the opportunity for others to go on record voluntarily. There is no reason for ANYBODY to be offended. --Riitoken (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Your lack of familiarity with WP policies is showing, and this is probably contributing to the frustration that you appear to be experiencing. You say that your purpose in creating the article was to help other would-be Risk clone makers figure out the intricate copyright issues associated with doing so. In other words, you were trying to create a guide on how to navigate the copyright issues associated with creating a legal Risk clone (and this is largely what the article turned out to be). However, are you aware of the policy which states that Wikipedia is not a manual or how-to guide? The policy suggests that you might want to take this content and add it to Wikihow or the How-To Wiki. Since it seems all but inevitable that this article is going to be deleted, I'd suggest preparing for that eventuality and figuring out what you'd like to do with the content you created before it is deleted. Continuing to post long rants and arguing with everyone who votes to delete the article, however, will almost certainly prove to be an enormous waste of time. SnottyWong ^express 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Sadly. We used to have an article that was a List Of Risk Clones, and I thought that was a handy resource, even though only a few of them could assert notability. This page, is not useful for anyone. It's just a defensive justification for the existence of Risk clones, with the only references being links to pages about copyright law!! The article contains no useful content on Risk clones, and anyone who could do the research to put together a well researched, referenced article about the topic would be better off starting from scratch anyway. There's nothing salvageable here. APL (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes we used to have such a list and yes it was very handy for those wanting to find an unbiased list of notable clones. But it was shot down by those demanding that there be an article and not just a list. So that is what I'm trying to start. But I find it very annoying that not a single one of you can admit that sometimes articles take time and require the input of more than one author. There isn't a single human being that can write an article like this in it's entirety; It's a large subject spanning 30+ years. I've done my best to start it and lay out some of the major issues for clone makers; but apparently all you guys can do is complain and some of you are biased. What exactly are any of you good for here other than complaining? Why don't you actually help make the article better? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Or is this just a place where editors and admins sit around all day and enter *Delete for any incomplete articles? And yes I am taking this personally. And yes I'm offended. It's my first attempt at a writing a minimally standard peer reviewed Wikipedia article and all I see is complaints. I am attempting to do the research but I've got a DELETE banner at the top of the article. So why should I or anybody spend any more energy when some authority higher up in the Wikipedia food chain can just decide to delete it? Why should anybody help with an article that has a DELETE guillotine hanging over it's head? What exactly is their motivation to spend time and energy on something that's going to get deleted? --Riitoken (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Riitoken, I can completely understand your frustration. I have no doubt you are editing in good faith, and with a genuine interest in your subject. However, what the extensive debate on this page demonstrates clearly is that you are taking criticism personally and failing to listen to feedback from experienced editors. Wikipedia has policies about the notability of a subject, and the fact that it must be dealt with by reliable sources. These things are not negotiable, and have been pointed out by several editors, and yet you continue to stick to arguments that have little to do with wikipedia policy or practice. You must understand that people are not at AfD simply to complain and criticise, but because removing articles that do not meet the minimum standards for inclusion is an important way to maintain the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. As I see it, you have three choices:

1. Accept that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia with a good grace, and apply your enthusiasm to writing or improving other articles. Personally, I mostly stick to articles that I don't care very much about, as that way I have no POV and it is less heartbreaking when they get changed or deleted. But that is up to you, really.
2. Continue to make your case using long posts, insulting other editors, and insinuating that people are under the employ of Hasbro, but without rooting your argument in wikipedia policies. If so, the article will almost certainly be deleted at the end of this process, and you will permanently damage your reputation on Wikipedia.
3. Carefully read WP:GNG and WP:RS and, if you still believe your article is acceptable for inclusion, go out and find at least two significant references to 'Risk clone' in a high-quality independent source such as a major newspaper, a published book or an academic paper. If you can do this, I will change my !vote to Keep, and asist you with improving the article.

I hope this helps.--Korruski^Talk 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I absolutely refuse to believe that a Wikipedia article cannot be allowed to exist in an unfinished state whilst the public collective mind hammers on the article to make it better. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA. This is why thousands of people fell in love with Wikipedia. This is why it has been successful. Only certain types of personalities are rubbed the wrong way for seeing an article that is not yet fully compliant. I am not one of those. I get excited when I see an article in an unfinished state; it makes me want to help (if I can make a decent contribution). Is the original idea of Wikipedia dead? Is it now just a bunch of policy police? What none of you are willing to admit is that this article can be a fully compliant encyclopediac contribution to Wikipedia. But it will take time and it will require more than just my efforts alone. It will require the efforts of those familiar with the history of Risk clones since the 80s'. It will require the efforts of those who play Risk clones and it will require those who are aware of the copyright case law on the subject. When the article is finished, future generations of Risk clone players and makers will be able to get a solid education from Wikipedia on the subject. --Riitoken (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much give up, in that case. However, let me finish by saying that there is a difference between an unfinished article, and an unencyclopedic article. Many articles on Wikipedia are unfinished, but they must make at least one reliably verifiable claim to notability. I am afraid that yours does not and, yes, I will admit that I do not believe this article can ever be fully compliant. If it was an obscure historical character, and you told me that the only reliable sources were out-of-print books in private collections, then I might be inclined to accept the 'give me time' argument. However, you are talking about a phenomenon that has existed for a couple of decades at the very most, and appears to revolve to a certain extent around the internet, so if you cannot find a single reliable source through a quick Google search, I am inclined to believe that they do not exist. I cannot understand why we need the efforts of those who play the game, or those who understand the case law, to be able to write the article. Indeed, if we do need people with specilised knowledge, then that strongly implies that whatever they added to the article would be original research and, therefore, not permissable.--Korruski^Talk 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Riitoken, that's a fair comment, so I'll explain. I honestly do not know where to find good source material for an article like this. If I did, I would overcome my lazyness, and rescue it by putting in a couple good, useful, well referenced paragraphs. I honestly believe that that's all it would take to swing this debate.

But apparently I'm not alone. No one, including yourself, knows how to turn this into a useful, well referenced article, otherwise they would have said right here, mentioned some sources that we could all go to the library and check out, or simply have fixed up the article.

That's why I believe that the article as it stands has no real value, and should be deleted without prejudice against recreation. APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update I have added a section for legal cases surrounding Risk specifically. The plan is to collect some case law and some actual examples for reference. --Riitoken (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Update I have re-arranged the sections. After re-reading some of the objections above, I now realize that leading with the copyright section is a mistake. It gives the reader the wrong impression as to the main purpose of the article - which is simply to document the 30+ year history of Risk clones. Yes, copyright issues are part of the article but it's not the main purpose. --Riitoken (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note. The author of this article, Riitoken, appears to be the designer of a risk clone covered in the article. See here where he states that he is Ray E. Bornert, who also appears in articles at Ray E. Bornert II, WinHoldEm and Xisk. His comments about being offended that the article is alleged to be spam are therefore disingenuous to say the least, if not downright deceptive. andy (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  Andy, judging any article for WP:NPOV is based entirely on the actual wording, phrasing used irregardless of who wrote the words. Do you care to prove that nobody from Hasbro or nobody favoring Hasbro's interests, has ever edited or not edited anything in the Risk (clone) article? Furthermore, if you want clarity here then how 'bout some Quid Pro Quo - answer the Hasbro poll question above if you think "conflict of interest" should be an issue in this debate. NOTE: there is zero reason for you to be offended. If you are then please explain why? --Riitoken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update added a Lingo Jargon section that documents the current/recent usage of the phrase Risk clone --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Update added an academic reference from the main article --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• QUESTIONS:

Is there anybody here that knew the term Risk clone before reading the article or participating in this debate?

If you say YES then please explain where you first learned the term and document the reference please (if you can't document your source then please explain your justification for knowing a term without a reference point).

If you say NO then - Have you now learned how the term is used and what is means when it is used?

If you claim the article is a lie or mis-representing reality then please cite a source that disagrees with the article documentation.

If you can't then please explain how you know this without citing a sacred source.

--Riitoken (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I had certainly heard the term before. It's common to refer to generic versions of well-known games as "{Game} Clone", just as acetaminophen is often called "Generic Tylenol". APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you. Now prove it with a sanctioned Wikipedia blessed hard source (newspaper, book, magazine, etc.) --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? That's the 'trap' you were setting here? I was hoping for something with wit. Or, failing that, a reply that had some basic awareness of the purpose of this entire conversation. The whole point is that no one here except you believes that such sources exist, and unless someone provides them then the article cannot continue to exist. APL (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the polls and questionnaires. It's pointless and insulting. As has been explained ad nauseum to you is this discussion is about whether the article meets Wikipedia standards. You're arguments should be focused on those standards, not on challenging editor's qualifications. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jamie, APL answered the Risk clone consciousness question ... why can't you? --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant to an AFD discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jamie, the questions are VERY relevant to those who demand that we cannot have a Wikipedia article for the term/phrase Risk clone just because we don't have any hard sources that define the term. The questions are a rebut to that mindset. --Riitoken (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review our WP:AFD, WP:OR, WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources policies. The article's adherence to those and other Wikipedia policies are what is relevant here, not some nebulous idea about the "spirit of Wikipedia." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jamie, yes I have reviewed those policies (and a friend has as well) and I do not find any glaring violations. I'm not willing to say the article is 100% at this point but it's getting there. Have you read the article lately or are you going on what was there several days ago? --Riitoken (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read it just now, and it still does not meet WP:GNG. Looking for ways that the article violates policy is rather misleading, what actually matters is does it conform to policy. For example, take the WP:GNG. This asks for significant coverage in reliable sources:

1. Significant coverage - I see no evidence of 'significant' coverage of this term. I see it being used occasionally by individuals in specific gaming circles, but that is a different thing.
2. Reliable sources - I see no reliable sources covering the term. Source 1 is a Masters thesis of limited reliability according to WP:RS, source 2 does not mention 'Risk clone' anywhere in its text, source 3 contains no content, source 4 does not mention 'clone' once, and does not mention 'risk' in the context of the board game at all, source 5 does not mention 'clone' once, and is in any case a Google group posting of almost no reliability according to WP:RS. (Citation numbering correct as of time of this post)

--Korruski^Talk 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Is evidence that sometimes there are academic reasons to write a risk clone. The word clone doesn't have to be used for you and I to know that it is evidence for the general idea of the article as well as the sentence it superscripts.

2) Is taken from the U.S. copyright office. Why would it mention the word 'clone'? It's not supposed to and nobody suggested that it should other than you. The purpose of the reference is to support the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."

3) source 3 is an error and will be removed

4) source 4 is a legal opinion that references copyright law and isn't expected to state the word 'clone'. It supports the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."

5) doesn't contain the word clone; it's purpose is to illustrate an instance of a risk like game that does not infringe copyrightable elements of the original. the instance illustrates what "non-infringement" is.

--Riitoken (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My point, which once again you seem to have missed or ignored, is that the article contains no reliable sources that suggest 'Risk Clone' is a notable idea. It may contain reliable sources for all kinds of other things, but that is beside the point since there is nothing to show the notability of the article subject. That is why it does not conform to policy. You can accept this or not, but it is pretty much the most fundamental of Wikipedia's policies, so no amount of argument or sophistry is going to change that. If, as is suggested by your posts below, you do not understand what Wikipedia means by notability then all I can do is, for the third time, point you at WP:NOTABILITY and ask you to read it.--Korruski^Talk 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Riitoken, Under construction or not, articles are expected to assert notability at every stage of their existence. If you're so certain that you'll be able to do that in the near future, why not stand aside gracefully right now, and come back when you're ready to create the article? Wikipedia will still be here. APL (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an article be notable to every man woman and child on the face of the earth - but only that it be notable to the audience it serves - and in this case the article is notable to any high school or colledge kid seeking to understand some important things about writing a Risk clone. Is every article on Wikipedia notable or important to you? Not me. But this article will have value to those wondering what they can and cannot do by way of writing their own clone. Right now they have no where to go for this info - which is why I am trying to contribute. --Riitoken (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a requirement that an article be notable to the publishers of reliable sources. the Risk (clone) article's failure to meet that requirement will be the reason that it is deleted. Please be careful, your persistent misstating of policies can appear to be a sign of disruptive editing. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ollie, Risk IS a notable idea and the act of creating Risk clones has been happening for 30+ years. Now we may not have an actual hard source that states this truth in paper/ink (because so far nobody has cared enough to write a book or article); nevertheless it is true. Assume for a moment that no such hard reference source exists until the year 2040? Will the readers of that book at that time believe that Risk clones were first notable in 2040? (the truth is Risk clones began with the PC revolution - I am an eyewitness - Now I've not published this fact in a book or magazine but it's still true.) Furthermore, if we have no hard sources publishing the observable facts of Risk clones today (and yet they exist), then what exactly would the 2040 author have to say about the History of risk clones if he's the first to publish on the subject? There are things that are true and observably true even if there isn't a hard source. Hard sources do not cause truth - they simply catalog it. Wikipedia does not cause truth; but it does catalog it. Now if the reality of Wikipedia is a mentality of "It didn't happen unless it was recorded in a book, newspaper or magazine, etc.", then that it IS NOT an appropriate mentality for a MODERN online digital collectively edited encyclopedia. Reasonable, repeatable, observable truth is ALWAYS it's own reference source. --Riitoken (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of this has been well addressed below, but I will answer the question put to me: Yes, if a given concept is first noted in 2040, that would be when it became notable. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and block Riitoken for disruption of a discussion by trying to make a WP:POINT. SixthAtom (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• wow! ... so speaking ones mind fully within a debate page is illegal? --Riitoken (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your posts above[1][2][3] indicate either a clear unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's rules, or a willful lack of understanding them. You're also ... let's say, not entirely civil[4][5](Note edit summary). Why wouldn't that imply that you're more trouble than you're worth? APL (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, with no more words than that. 2005 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion Stop trying to engage Riitoken in this debate. It's clear he's not willing to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. This afd is already a slam dunk for the reviewing admin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• I know, I know. I should have given up ages ago. I just keep hoping that what I've been saying is going to get through. But yes, it's not worth the effort anymore :( --Korruski^Talk 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question How do we document reasonable, repeatable, observable truth in cases where there isn't a hard source? I can accept an answer of "we are not allowed to publish truth unless we have a hard source"; I just want somebody to say that out loud in the record of this debate. If somebody wrote a line in an article that said "All cars ever made are yellow" - I don't need anything other than repeatable observability to KNOW that is wrong - I don't need a hard source telling me the truth of this; I can figure it out on my own (and presumably any normal reader would as well). The subject of Risk is notable as evidenced by the existing artcle. The truth of Risk clones are repeatedly observable without a hard source. They exist; Nobody (and I mean nobody) needs a hard source to know the truth of this. It is observably true. But if you're saying we cannot write on the subject of Risk clones until there is some hard source saying they exist then that is just plain silly. --Riitoken (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NOTTRUTH : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.".

No one is disputing that your article is true.APL (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE I am not opposed to WP policies. But I am opposed to the interpretation of those polices in this case. Risk is notable. Risk clones exist by independent repeatable observability. The article is not a violation of policy. --Riitoken (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha! So basically, "I like rules except when I have to follow them!"?

Dude, you realize that you've lost this, right? Any second now an admin might come along and snowball close this and delete your article. People are just debating with you in the hopes of making you understand why. APL (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that rules are always safe from misapplication and misinterpretation right? I am definitely in favor of following rules that are interpreted and applied correctly with neutral bias. --Riitoken (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What interpretation? Articles MUST HAVE reliable sources that verify notability and accuracy. Articles CANNOT be based on personal knowledge or experience. It's pretty straightforward. APL (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank You Gentlemen (and ladies?), seeing as my 7 day deadline is drawing close, I'd like to say a genuine thanks to everyone who participated in this debate. I'd always wanted to create an article for Wikipedia. This was the first subject where I really thought I had a chance to satisfy all the rules and I gave it the college try. I must admit that as a result of this experience I've more than doubled any pre-existing knowledge I had about Wikipedia and the standard rules and guidelines. This debate has helped me ponder issues I hadn't fully considered. For the record, there was and is not any willful deceit and/or conflict of interest on my part - anybody may contribute to an article as long as they remain neutral (and that is a good and healthy). I wish you all well. --Riitoken (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete: As everyone above but Riitoken readily agrees, there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. It may warrant mention in the Risk article, and little beyond that. (I also commend WP:KEEPCONCISE to Riitoken).  Ravenswing  14:32, 20 January 2011 (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.