The following discussion is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article below. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, I don't know where exactly. Maybe the talk page?

The result of the review was restore. --bainer (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When making recommendations, please use "delete" or "restore" where possible, as "endorse closure" is not particularly informative in this saga with at least six closures. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Latest AFD

Deleted by Zoe even though the debate was closed as No Consensus. Since that is essentially a challenge of the closure, I have brought it here. Her reasoning for deletion was "violation of WP:V". Kotepho 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore? While WP:V uses the plural 'sources' in some cases it does not stress requiring multiple, independent sources. My opinion is that there are cases where a single source is sufficient, such as an article about a play could very well be entirely sourced from the play itself. This deletion was also out of process and not supported by our deletion policy. Kotepho 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. Note also that the main source is from a major Belgian newspaper, so no issues with credibility there. JoshuaZ 04:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There have been falsified articles in the New York Times, also. And -- has anyone verified if it's an article or a column, such as the one written by Dave Barry? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is isn't clear to me how any of that is relevant. And don't think you mean "falsified" but "incorrect" Finally, its not Wikipedia's job to investigate a reliable source once the source is reliable. Just because there have been issues in (to use the perennial example) the New York Time's wouldn't make it an unreliable source. JoshuaZ 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore; nothing out of process here. The verifiability of this article should not be discussed on the admin noticeboard nor on deletion review. Bring it to another AfD or ArbCom. ~ PseudoSudo 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pseduo, if you could clarify, by Endorse Closure do you mean Restore? JoshuaZ 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I honestly edit-conflicted with you on fixing that. ~ PseudoSudo 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the sinking feeling we'll only get another non consensus if we go to AfD again (I doubt this DRV is going to have a strong consensus either way either), not to mention the concern over what is and is not out of process in this case Darquis 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. Had citations and no consensus to delete.--Primetime 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore as I think the Belgian newspaper source allows the article to pass WP:V, and I'll also note that the proper action when you disagree with the result of an AFD is to take it here, not to delete it out of process, whether or not you're an admin.-Polotet 05:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah shit I just lost The Game --Cyde Weys 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore, article was deleted contrary to AfD result. VegaDark 05:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What an odd situation. First the article was recreated out of process after DRV determined to keep it deleted, then it's deleted out of process after the AfD decided to keep it. Huh. WarpstarRider 05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was deleted because it lacked sources, recreation with sources isn't out of process. Guettarda 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The single source wasn't good enough for the closer of the DRV, if you read the decision. WarpstarRider 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The single source didn't show up until the end of the DRV discussion, most of the commentators in the DRV probably never saw it, and it is unclear to me whether or not the closing admin looked at the source either. JoshuaZ 05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From the closing decision:

  I'd urge everyone who wants an article kept based upon a single (unsourced) newspaper article to carefully review the guidelines on verification, bias, and reliability of sources.

  It was taken into consideration. WarpstarRider 05:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I said "looked at the source" Maybe it would be more accurate if I said "read the source" (since it isn't in English) and/or "realized it was from a major Belgian newspaper" JoshuaZ 06:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, the community is supposed to make the decision, and the closing admin reflect that, rather than the closer just making the decision. --David.Mestel 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore - looks like yet another case of Zoe disregarding policy. Guettarda 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article should be undeleted. Incidentally, let me say again that I hate the process obsession such that I'm expected to figure out what the fuck the closure I'm endorsing or rejecting is. Article is verifiable. Article should exist. Isn't that simpler. Phil Sandifer 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Process is particularly important in controversial topics, otherwise they would become free for alls. JoshuaZ 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Principle and an understanding of why we do what we do is important. Process, as this is showing, is just a mess. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is reminding me of the Brian Peppers debacle. I'm just waiting for Jimbo to delete the article as recreation of previously deleted content and proclaim it shouldn't be recreated for a year. VegaDark 06:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't nearly as bad. For one, we don't have people claiming to represent relatives of The Game threatening to sue. JoshuaZ 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet... VegaDark 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would suggest that since the deletion was out of process, the recreation of the article should be allowed to stand while the DRV discussion runs.-Polotet 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete last in process procedure was the DRV to keep deleted after an AFD to delete which is what should be gone by not all these out of process actions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the most recent AFD an out of process action?-Polotet 06:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he's saying Zoe's deletion was out of process. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he is saying that recreating the page was out of process, so therefore the AfD should be discounted as out of process. I would disagree with that assessment however. VegaDark 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a process for creating articles now? ;p-Polotet 07:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the claim here is that as recreated content that failed a deletion review it is effectively out of process. In fact, this is incorrect, recreated content is speediable if uncontested, it then goes to AfD (I think), but in any case, given that the AfD occured and it was a clear no consensus, this strikes me as heavy wikilawyering. This is a deletion review, not a talmud class. JoshuaZ 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And if it were a talmud class, we'd have POV problems until the Shabbat ends tomorrow and the Orthodox Jews can join us again.-Polotet 07:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh god, not again. The result is very clearly no consensus, and that means the article should be kept. Also, it's becoming clear at this point that the article isn't what's disruptive to Wikipedia, but the deletion debate is, and I'd consider Zoe's adding fuel to the flames to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. This sort of unilateral action only serves to show the loss of perspective caused by this whole sordid affair. Do we have to allow this DRV to run its full course, or is there a "speedy keep" option? --Kizor 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (regretfully) Keep undeleted. Although IMO back-section fluff like the article used as a source should not necessarily qualify as a reliable source, consensus is that if the leading section of a paper is reliable, then all the articles in the paper are reliable. I think that is a rosy view -- filler articles are often not fact-checked at all, but the article is not in stark violation of policy as it stands. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) revised per admin request Robert A.West (Talk) 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there are serious problems with a single source for a phenomenon that is contained in only one verifiable source, but that can be addressed within the article. If the source is found to be circular back to Wikipedia or otherwise questioned, a new AfD would be appropriate. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What Robert said, with the reservation that it's not actually consensus but a lack of consensus that brings us to this conclusion. There's a strong case to be made for changing the no-consensus outcome for AfDs, but with the current policies, Endorse closure. --W(t) 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore per all of the above. Process was followed, WP:V is not a case for speedy deletion.  Grue  08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore per most of the above. Deletion was unjustified. --Kizor 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore per Guettarda et al •Jim62sch• 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closeur and restoar per the fact that a "no consensus" becomes a "keep", in the interests of wikicompleteness. Jdcooper 11:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Close and Restore - for the millionth time. WP:V is no longer violated. If the article starts making big claims then it'll be violated. in its current short form its perfectly ok. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore per many comments above. FloNight ^talk 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore.

"Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity." - User:Zoe

After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Zoe votes "Delete" because "This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V".

After the AfD is closed as no consensus, Zoe deletes the article.

I'm beginning to think this is more about personal vendettas than what's best for Wikipedia. Kernow 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also think this article does not belong in Wikipedia. I am also not convinced that the Belgium newspaper article is enough to establish verifiability. For one thing, very few of our readers understand Flemish/Dutch. And if this game is so important in English speaking countries, why is the only printed reference offered so far from Belgium? Finally, what has been done to establish that this newspaper is a reliable source? I think the real question though, is why so many editors have wanted to keep this article whether or not a verifiable source can be found. I think is highly inappropriate for you to suggest that some kind of personal vendetta is driving the effort to keep this article out of Wikipedia. There are a number of us who feel that Wikipedia does not need this kind of mindless, unsourced trivia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment We've been over most of this before. The newspaper is a major Belgian newspaper. Major newspapers often are seen to have presumption of reliability. There was essentially no consensus as to whether or not the source met WP:RS, so as per the AfD rules, no consensus leads to keep. To argue that since the source is in a different language it shouldn't be in the English Wikipedia is the most explicit example of the systematic bias which we hope to avoid in writing about world-wide or non-English topics. Finally, it would be strongly appreciated if everyone (regardless of their opinion on the article) would cool off and refrain from personal attacks and try to remain civil. JoshuaZ 15:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this "mindless trivia" is neither mindless, nor trivia (at least in the perjorative sense), and is completely at home on Wikipedia, I definitely agree that it is unnecessary and unhelpful to bandy around accusations of vendettas. I for one cannot think of any possible reason for a "vendetta". Sure, some people might well be voting against the article because they dont like The Game, but that is virtually in the same way that others are voting for the article just because they like it. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson, but I don't vote for his article to be deleted, and I very much like Rosanagh Ker, but I don't think there should be an article about her. Personal taste is not what we work on here, and to assume that people are is bad faith, either way...Jdcooper 15:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that everyone has a vendetta, just that the actions of Zoe (which I believe is the cause of this current discussion) are unreasonable and appear to be a case of exactly what you describe, a dislike of The Game. Kernow 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore: of course, as I closed the AfD. The main dabate on the AfD was whether or not the newspaper souce was verifible, and there was clearly no consensus. Prodego ^talk 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore, clear abuse of admin privileges after AfD closure. Ashibaka tock 15:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. Althoug I must say I think most people here cheated; its illegal not to say you lost the game. During the typing of this sentence, I lost several times. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore It has a verifiable source, it does not violate WP:V, it should be kept. Daniel (☎) 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD closure and restore per above. DRV has been dealing quite a bit with Zoe lately -- She should take a break on "creative deletions" for a while. Xoloz 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good suggestion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. I'd just like to say this: Does it really matter? Can anyone say they care really deeply about this either way, and if so, why? David | Talk 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, wait a sec... just because something is an absurd children's game, that doesn't mean that noting it is valueless. I'm sure a child psychologist could make an interesting observation regarding the appeal of the game to young minds vs. the disgust it can inspire in adults. In that sense, I do care about this article, dumb as its topic seems. Xoloz 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? "A children's game"? "Disgust"? Bizarre... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or keep deleted, or whatever. This article was kept deleted on April 12 by an admin who had full awareness and knowledge of the fabled Belgian newspaper article.[1] It was then illegitimately resurrected a day later by the very person who'd originally brought it to deletion review in the first place.[2] This individual has offered no new information to justify resurrecting this article that had not already been taken into account during the last deletion review. None. The last legitimate action to have been taken regarding this article was Aaron Brenneman's keep-deleted ruling on April 12, and it is in that state that the article should remain while any other decisions are made. --phh (^t/_c) 17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't really care what state the article is in, but I have a hard time calling Brenneman's keep deleted legitimate. The newspaper source was produced way after the debate had settled down (it started March 27th, newspaper article found April 11th) and was copy/paste moved to a subpage. The vast majority of votes were made without any knowledge of the new source. Basically the closure of the DRV amounts to one admin dictating that the newspaper is not a reliable source. This is exactly the same problem that Zoe's deletion runs into. We do not make decisions based on one admin's view; we work on consensus. Processes are in place to rule on if something is valid within our policies. Those processes should be followed except in the cases where consensus has decided they are exempt from process (CSDs). Kotepho 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a democracy. The purpose of "votes" like this one is to provide people with a forum for airing a range of opinions and arguments; in the end, it is the best argument that "wins," not the one with the most votes. That the newspaper article was raised in the final days of the review doesn't matter: if it's a good enough exhibit to carry the day, it should carry the day even if nobody sees it but the closing admin. Well, it didn't carry the day--Aaron considered it, decided it didn't bring the article to an acceptable level of verifiability, and kept it deleted. If Ashibaka disagreed with that assessment, the proper course of action would have been to relist the article here, state his belief that Aaron didn't give proper consideration to a new piece of information, and ask for another review. Instead, he went cowboy, decided that he knew better than everyone else, and re-created the article in violation of process. Please do not reward this behavior. --phh (^t/_c) 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your first two sentences contradict each another. As you say, the AfD allows people to air "a range of opinions and arguments". However, if the people airing their opinions and arguments are unaware of a key source, then the fact it was raised in the final days clearly does matter. Especially as the majority of the discussion was about verifiability. As for "Please do not reward this behavior", whether or not Ashibaka followed correct procedure is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist. Kernow 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree with you on the recreation. It should not have been recreated by Ashitaka. The same argument works against Zoe though, which is the action that is actually being reviewed (or the original closure, at this point I'm not even sure). We have processes so that one admin does not make decisions. Process gets things wrong sometimes. We have processes to check the results of process! Again, no need for a rouge admin to decide that they know better than everyone else. If you accept the result of the AFD you reward one admin's cowboy attitude, but the converse is also true as Zoe's action is the same. She decided that she knew better than the closer of the debate and deleted it instead of bringing it here. Should we beat them both with their own mops? I don't know; nor do I care. Kotepho 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and keep deleted I completely concur with phh on this one. Regardless of when the newpaper article was presented as evidence (in closing, brenneman explicitly implied that he was aware of the article and still didn't consider it sufficient), the fact remains that the article was deleted, it was sent to DRV which did not overturn that decision, and a day later the article was back. DRV is about assessing process, not forming consensus to establish article worthiness. Kinitawowi 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between:

1. A closing admin basing his decision on a collection of opinions and arguments regarding a new source, and the source itself.

2. A closing admin basing his decision on a collection of out-of-date opinions and arguments made without knowledge of the source, and the source itself.

Yes, he took into account the source, but he did not take into account anyone else's opinions on the source. Kernow 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect... everyone else's opinions on the source are irrelevant. If the admin, in whose hands the decision does ultimately rest (Wikipedia is not a democracy, after all...) decides that the source does not satisfy WP:RS and therefore the article still fails against WP:V, then that is his decision to make. Admins are appointed based on their ability to impartially make these choices, after all. Kinitawowi 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about consensus, and if those forming a consensus did not have all the information in front of them its hard to see that as a valid consensus. I'm curious in any case, if you think that we should defer to closing admins, shouldn't we defer to Prodego who closed the last AfD as no consensus? JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there shouldn't have been an article for him to rule on in the first place. Kinitawowi 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which admin gets to make the decision? Kernow 17:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admins discuss it between themselves (probably on WP:AN) to find one who hasn't been involved in the debate, presumably. I don't pretend to know the full details of administrative process, though, so I'm willing to be corrected on that. Kinitawowi 17:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly correct. I asked for an uninvolved admin on WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and keep/restore per rpseer and others. Mangojuice 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - I can't believe there's been this much chatter about this absolutely inane topic. I've never, ever, ever heard of this in my life before I saw it on here, and in the circles I run in, internet trends and silliness like this would have been brought up at some point. The Belgian newspaper article is useless, if the translation I saw is a good indication - it has no references, no quotes, no nothing but the conjecture of some reporter (and being a reporter, I know that means virtually nothing to notability, especially in an opinion piece - and very especially with absolutely no sources mentioned). It's a dead end of an article, and the fact that people want to use it as verification is scary. Make the insanity stop, and let this die.Tony Fox 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and (keep) delete(d). The last in-process action, among those listed on the talk page, was the deletion due to the 17 March nomination. The 27 March deletion review led to the result "Keep deleted", and the article was restored. The 14 April AfD led the result "No Consensus", and the article was deleted. This process let to the article being restored. Furthermore, I doubt very much that this game is the most common game called "the Game", but that's a content dispute. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I give up. As long as the article is renamed to something descriptive, I'm willing to accept it as encyclopedic, even though I'm still not convinced it's actually played. All the references are consistent with the "players" pretending to play it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo JoshuaZ's reply to Pegasus1138's response above. A seven-day, full-fledged, perfectly in-process discussion took place during the April AfD, showing that there is currently no community consensus to delete the article. Ruling to void this AfD because of a claim its mere existence was not in-process, using this to act according to an actually currently-outdated discussion, does seem to fit the definition of wikilawyering. ~ PseudoSudo 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm treating this as a review of the 27 March proposal. Hence I endorse closure and say the situation should be reverted to the status at that time -- keep deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so in other words you are commenting on an action which this review isn't reviewing. Thank you for the clarification. JoshuaZ 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reviewing the deletion/undeletion status of the article -- exactly what this process is supposed to be doing. A more detailed discusion of my vote what be Close and revert to last status on which concensus was obtained (deleted). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no such thing as "out of process" creation of an article because there is no process for creating articles. A speedy deletion of the article immediately after its recreation probably would have been an in process action, but taking it to AFD instead is not "out of process," and, as no discussions had fully considered the new inclusion of the Belgian newspaper article, was probably the right decision.-Polotet 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- how a meta-game about the article, with the same rules, but only open to Wikpedians — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If this game isn't the most commonly called the Game, then surely there would be more information, even just on blogs and whatnot, on this supposed other game, right?Darquis 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only if you can find it. I might concede this is the most indexed "the Game", but that doesn't mean it's prevelant. I couldn't find this one except by tracing links from here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you google for the phrase "I just lost the game" you will return hits almost uniformily about The Game. JoshuaZ 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Irrelevant for multiple reasons, even if correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your question was about prevalence. It answers that specifically. That search and similar google searches show it is prevalent. JoshuaZ 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not answer any question about prevalence, as Google does not unindex duplicate pages — as can easily be seen by seeing how many copies of unique typos from Wikipedia or from the Open Directory Project are found in a google search. Furthermore, as that phrase "I just lost the game.", as written, is part of "the game", according to the article, the prevalence of that phrase is nearly an upper bound on the prevalence of "the game". I'm willing to accept a rename to The Game (meme), and then blanking and protecting The Game and The Game (game), as I'm willing to accept the likelihood that it's the most prevalent meme called "the Game". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Google searches do not establish prevalence with high accuracy, but they can make a rough approximation. If for example, you go through the hits on that phrase by hand, you will find that almost all of them are referring to The Game (game). As for the issue of naming it The Game (meme), The Game (game), thats an issue removed from whether some version of the article should stay. I suggest we resolve the deletion/restoration matter and then concentrate on problems like the naming if it is restored. The matter is complicated enough as is. JoshuaZ 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Unverifiable from reliable sources. The fact that only one passing mention in a Dutch-language newspaper could be found even after an website was set up to solicit citations is telling. Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what criteria on Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources this article fails. Nor is an article multiple paragraphs in length, devoted solely to the subject a "passing" mention. Lastly, unless you're suggesting STG.org is some massively popular site, I don't think it's lack of results is indicative of anything. Darquis 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. Even though I'm still unhappy with the recreation that led to the April AfD, I'll respect the no consensus that resulted from that AfD, which was certainly in-process. And since "no consensus" = "keep", that should be the end of it. BryanG 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete The reliability of the news article is in question. That's fine. Such things need to be discussed and debated. But when there is no consensus about how to view this in context of the page about The Game, then a speedy delete is definitely uncalled for. In regards to the oringinal DRV, as several have pointed out, very few saw the Belgian article. This led to, not a community decision based on all the evidence, but a decision by very few people. As evidenced by the last AfD linked at the top of this current discussion, that article now has cast enough doubt so that consensus cannot be reached.Darquis 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (whatever the next comment was in response to, there doesn't seem to have been a "speedy delete" in this history.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In this context the speedy refered to is Zoe's deletion after the last AfD had been closed as no consensus. JoshuaZ 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, the comment you split up was mine also (just for the sake of refrence). I'll go ahead and transport to clear up any confusion. JoshuaZ has it right in regards to a Speedy Delete..there was a recent AfD, of which the result was no consensus. Whether that itself was out of process is a matter for another time. But speedying after an AfD found no consensus when WP:V was put to the question, and WP:V is the reason for speedying..that's what I had the problem with. Darquis 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has in fact been speedied twice, by me (quickly followed by an undelete) and then by Zoe. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. A social phenomenon, mentioned only in one newspaper article? Heavens! --Pjacobi 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment is about the article. It would belong in an AfD, and that already happened. Discussions here are not about articles, but about deletion decisions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We just had this discussion. This battle has been long, ugly, and increasingly indeed a battle rather than a debate. Voters have refused to listen to changes in facts, administrators have acted solely on their own opinions. Every outcome has been disputed, every appeal made. Stop it! Is there any reason to have this discussion? Any way to just quit already? --Kizor 22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've seen some concerns that everything after the original DRV was out of process. If the article passes this DRV, which has all of the evidence available, are we back in process, or is it still invalidated by the recreation of the article? Darquis 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shhh. You're really encouraging wiki-lawyers to stuff beans up their noses. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given Zoe's recent comments on my talk page, I would not be surprised if she choose to delete it again even after this review was complete. She seems to think that no form of consensus can override her interpretation of policy. JoshuaZ 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that the latter is the case. Wikipedians tend to respect precedent, which is why it's such a problem when the status quo doesn't immediately get restored after some admin goes cowboy--it creates a new, invalid precedent and the burden of proof shifts to those defending the prior status quo. The article should not now exist, and this deletion review should properly be about whether the article should be reinstated in light of the Belgian newspaper article, which apparently has taken on the status of a papal encyclical in the eyes of some. Instead, everything's gone topsy-turvy with no easy way to unfuck it. --phh (^t/_c) 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that the last in process action that was not preceeded by an out of process action was the keeping of the article after the 2nd AFD. The closure of the 3th AFD was out of process as process only gauges consensus, and there is none (but I think it was the correct call at the time). However, I fail to see how arguing about previous process decisions has much relevence after there has been another process ruling. Kotepho 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll elaborate on my beans, then. Anyone who invokes yet another process (like starting a 5th AfD, speedy deleting the article, starting an RfC, etc.) shortly after this DR closes should be reverted for disruption. Nothing is going to change in a week to create consensus, and the last thing we need is more unproductive debate. What "should" have been done will never be clear, and nothing will be remedied by more wiki-lawyering. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. The deletion was out of process and relies on a questionable (though possibly correct) interpretation of WP:V. Article should remain in namespace and the administrator's actions should be reviewed. Sysop privileges are just that- privileges, held in trust by representatives of the community to speed along enforcement of consensus. When that trust is violated it harms the community and harms Wikipedia..Captainktainer 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One more time, since people have continued claiming things about process: Article creation doesn't have a process, and can never be out of process. When The Game (game) was recreated after the last DRV, it was arguably valid speedy candidate, but it wasn't speedied and instead taken to AFD. For everyone who blathers about process: THERE IS NOTHING OUT OF PROCESS ABOUT TAKING AN ARTICLE THAT MIGHT BE A SPEEDY DELETION CANDIDATE TO AFD INSTEAD. There really isn't. If you disagree, please point out an element of policy somewhere that contradicts me, or that says that recreations can't be taken to AFD rather than speedy deleted at a user's discretion. Therefore, the most recent in process close was Prodego's AFD close as no consensus. Anyone who says the old DRV was the last in process action is either ignorant of process or lying.-Polotet 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore, I have been ambivilant on the article, I'm not horribly impressd with the source, but process has clearly been followed, and Zoe is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Endorse - I still feel this article needs a better source and should be watched to make sure unrefernced material isn't introduced. Also, I'm not pleased that the article was recreated and AfD'd, rather than discussed before recreation. However, it appears that the AfD was closed correctly, so I have no choice to to endorse it. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out that this comment is rather vague. I'd like to clarify, I still think the article should be deleted, due to lack of WP:RS. However, the lack of WP:RS is now debateable (whereas before it was clear-cut.) Therefore, I endorse the latest closure. (Although, I hoped it would be more verbose.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore: Regardless of whether the Game is stupid (that is totally irrelevant to this discussion), the article should not have been deleted. To those who claim that it was recreated out of process, that point should have been brought up at the appropriate time. —smably 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. I can't believe this is still being debated. We have the required source. Let's end this pointless debate and keep the article. James Kendall [talk] 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore: It should not have been deleted in the first place. me_and 22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted!! Let it Die Already!!!!! If four diffrent people have put this up on AFD, and it has been deleted twice, something is seriously wrong with the article, not to mention something wrong with our methods. Even though there is no consensus, when looking at all of the discussions, there are more delete votes than keep. This article shows how incopenent all of are in deleting articles. We dont need five discusions just to destory this piece of junk. Tobyk777 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The amount of times an article reaches AfD doesn't indicate something is necessarily wrong with the article, nor does someone deleting it out of process. However, there is something wrong when people treat AfD or DRV as a voting process. Even if there were more votes for delete than keep (which, at least, in the 4th AfD there weren't), that's not a valid way to decide the matter. Citing policy is, reaching consensus on whether the article meets standards is. Ranting about incompetent deletion is not. Darquis 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted even though it's been restored and slap with a trout the person who failed to follow up the last DRV with ((deletedpage)). This article's continued existance is nothing short of an attack on the most foundational concepts of Wikipedia. I, like Zoe, was waiting to see if the newer AfD would have something like a rational discourse. Failing that I'd have liked to have seen the adminstrator closing it to have shown a stronger stance on WP:V. Failing that I'd have liked either of the two admins who closed this take the time to write something up regarding the manner in which they closed. None of these things happened. Instead, we've had the most extreme case of clutching at straws with regard to sources I've ever had the displeasure to observe, followed by not one but two dishwater-tepid closes. Hey admins, here's a good rule of thumb: Make your close reasoning proportional to the contention of the close. Even the most liberal reading imaginable of WP:Reliable Sources doesn't let this one in. Shall we start "voting" on Brian Peppers while we're at it? I love process and all, but I love the encyclopedia more, and we do not vote on verification. This article in of itself may not be "harmful" but the precedent is. Everyone needs to grow some stones and educate people about what a real source is and what is and isn't encyclopedic, instead of rolling over and giving it up because guys who "learned it in camp" think it should stay. If we do not develop a robust method of dealing with issues like this we're doomed. - brenneman^{L} 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How does protecting it deleted help when two admins recreate the page? Also, please explain how the De Morgen article is not a reliable source by our guidelines. The only part of RS and V that this article fails is multiple verification. Some people view policies through a stricter lens than others, and your view of policy is no more salient that anyone else's. Also, this close was discussed on AN (as you know since you commented there), but I too would have liked more of an explaination in the closure of the debate and the closer did not respond to your request for one. You didn't exactly ask nicely though. Kotepho 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not vote on verification, true. We also do not use absurd and stupid standards for verification that have been cooked up by some overzealous rules-lawyers who want to condense complex issues like the nature of reliable sources into machine-readable guidelines. Simply put, our current reliable source and verifiability guidelines are deeply flawed documents that close off large numbers of valid paths for large numbers of valid articles in pursuit of foreclosing the viewpoints of a handful of nutjobs that we were perfectly capable of foreclosing anyway. Phil Sandifer 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then that's a case for discussion at the relevant talk pages of WP:V and WP:RS (and the best of luck if you want to try and force a policy change through that route). Until then, they remain policy and that means they still have to be adhered to. Kinitawowi 10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again and protect from recreation -Dear Aaron sums it well. WP:V is non-negotiable. -Zero^Talk 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave it undeleted for now with out any prejudice against relisting after some more time has passed. A no consensus decision is to be respected and there is a newspaper source so there is no gross violation of WP:V if there is a violation at all. Still, I do find this thing somewaht lacking when it comes to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." - Wikipedia:Deletion policy. the wub "?!" 10:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore - even though I think the game is anti-constitution :D // Gargaj 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse last valid closure, keep deleted. The supposed source only convinced those who were happy not to have a source in the first place, underlining the article's lack of verifiability. Attempts to point out that there is a high likelihood that the only source, a single newspaper article, was based on ours are met with "Prove it", as if any and all crap that gets written by bloggers is true until proven false, which is not how you go about writing an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then how do you explain the change from a delete result on the "last valid" AFD to a clear no consensus on the one we just had. Even the closing admin stated on AN that he was leaning towards delete before checking out the source. the wub "?!" 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any evidence that the newspaper article was based on something written on Wiki? It's one thing to say people are ignoring this "high likilihood", but how is your claim any different from that of a "crap writing blogger"? Darquis 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any evidence that the newspaper article was not based on something written on Wiki? Or, for that matter, is there any evidence that the newspaper article was based on anything in reality? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, I can't read Dutch (or Flemish, or Belgian, or pretty much any language that isn't English). Should the default assumption be that the article is unsuitable? For that matter, is there any default policy in regards to newspaper articles, given that they tend to be unsourced? I guess what I'm looking for is either something in Wiki policy that somewhat clearly says this is not an acceptable source, or some evidence that the article was based on Wikis. Lacking either of those, I accept it as a valid source (but can see why others might be hesitant not to accept it) Darquis 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any evidence that you are not a kitten huffing robot or that you actually exist, Mr. Rubin? Kotepho 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthur Rubin (which I edited by request, to add information, but did not create nor request creation.) This article does not provide evidence that the game actually exists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That article has no sources. I am going to assert that it is completely made up, and that you are in fact a kitten huffing robot still because it has none. Kotepho 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, actually, you picked a pretty bad example. Aside from the sentence about your Erdos number, The Game has one more verifiable source than you do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We have no reason to presume that the newspaper article was based on the Wikipedia article. In fact, if one compares the deleted version of the The Game article to the newspaper article, one is forced to conclude that there sources are different. They have slightly different rule descriptions and different lists of countries they are played in, among other major differences. I would be surprised if it turned out that we were the source for the article, since all the evidence points otherwise. JoshuaZ 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WHAT sources?! The newspaper article quoted nothing at all. There is *no* source in it. It reads like an opinion piece, IMO, and really has nothing to give this discussion except a useful thing for people to point to and say "Look, a source!" Totally useless.Tony Fox 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument has been brought up a number of times and is completely ridiculous. What you seem to be saying is that for a source to be reliable, it needs to be supported by a reliable source. This cannot be Wikipedia policy because it leads to infinite regress. Kernow 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me put it this way: No referred sources, no consideration as a source whatsoever from me. A reporter who'd given me that article for publication would have gotten it back, as confetti. Printing it in anything but, say, a school newspaper or a tabloid is really sad if the paper is actually considered a valid journal.Tony Fox 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, then a lot of facts in any newspaper article are going to be non-citable. For example, if an article says "Last year, President X of country Y did not visit allied Country _" without citing a source, that would be not-citable in your interpretation. You are rendering most facts in major, such as the New York Times, uncitable. If you want, on the talk page of this DRV, I'll take a section of a representative article(only a paragraph or two for fair use) and go through whats citable under this standard. The answer is, almost none. Nor for that matter, is your "policy" backed up anywhere in WP:V or WP:RS. JoshuaZ 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I have taken the iniative to do this on the talk page of this review. JoshuaZ 16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deleted. The article, and the arguments for it, make a mockery of wikipedia. Is this an encyclopedia or not? If people want it to be a chat room/forum discussion for their own little games, they should be big enough to admit it. MikeHobday 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Endorsing closure of the AFD would imply undeleting the article. Please clarify. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarified above as 'keep deleted' MikeHobday 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How do arguments about how policy should be implemented and if something meets Wikipedia's standards make a mockery of Wiki? I thought that was the point?Darquis 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I think the article (and the game) is complete tosh and deserves to be eradicated as totally unencyclopaedic. On the other hand, process is important and there hasn't been much in the line of well-defined consensus at AFD and DRV debates in the past. Zoe's speedy deletion probably didn't meet the criteria, but the ends in this case justify the means. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would seriously consider asking ArbCom to rule on this. I know they don't generally consider content disputes, but this is a little bigger than your usual content dispute. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom doesn't accept big content disputes either. People aren't violating policy in this debate, only disagreeing about its interpretation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although this probably isn't the right place to offer my opinion, some people should bear the following in mind: If this article gets deleted, it will get recreated. Some seem to believe that these discussions are riddled with sockpuppets, but that is not the case. Hundreds of thousands of people play The Game. The number of players is growing all the time. The number of people using Wikipedia is growing all the time. More and more people will visit Wikipedia to read about The Game. In fact, most people will come to Wikipedia to add The Game article, they will not expect it to already exist because most people are told about The Game in person, rather than over the net. Because of The Game's name, it will not necessarily be added as "The Game (game)". We have already seen someone add it as "Lost (game)", assumably unaware that this "The Game (game)" article already existed. To the people that hope that deleting this article will make The Game disappear from Wikipedia, it won't. It is completely understandable why you think of this game as stupid and annoying, but people play it regardless. All of this is, of course, my opinion and irrelevant to the verifiabilty of this article. I'm just saying, don't let The Game annoy you too much, because it's not going to go away any time soon. Kernow 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help but feel that that completely pointless rant needed to be ended with an evil laugh. Kinitawowi 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was, I just wasn't sure how to put it in writing. Kernow 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The game exists, and needs an article. We need to find references for it, but in the meantime we need to put up with a valid article that isn't yet referenced. --Hughcharlesparker 09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redelete, and keep deleted. This issue is a mess, and the only other thing I'd like to say is that if the article is kept after this mess, per WP policy the article needs to be stripped down to only what the verifiable sources say about it. The article sites one questionable source and mentions another source. Someone needs to get access to both, and any other additional information needs to have another source. If nothing better than blog posts and geocities pages can be found for a bit of information, that information can't be included. Otherwise I could go create a wepage for myGame^TM and use that to verify including an article on it. It seems that's not far from what's going on here, but at least we can apply Wikipedia policy to keep it to a minimum. This is exactly what WP:V is for, and if no reliable sources can be found, no information needs to be included about it. If it's not important enough to be written about with reliable sources, we don't need an article on it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does only contain information provided by the source. Kernow 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While as far as I am concerned, the only issue at hand is whether Zoe's deletion was in-process (and since she went a against a no-consensus vote without talking to the closing admin or bringing the matter here her deletion was not in process. We should be respecting the "no consensus" AfD.), some people have attempted to again bring up the issue of whether the Belgian article is citable under Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have therefore performed a little experiment on the talk page of this review, applying their standard to a New York Times article. The result is illuminating. JoshuaZ 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Nonsense. Non-verifyable per Just zis guy. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deletion review, not AfD. The content of the article has been discussed for months, with no consensus. What we're discussing now is the closure of the last AfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Tag (game) is also a popular game. Yet, it lacks any external references. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just noticed this is a DRV, not TfD. In such case, speedy restore, since "failure to meet WP:V" is not a CSD. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Belgian newspaper article is unimpressive. Phr 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deletion review, not AfD. The content of the article has been discussed for months, with no consensus. What we're discussing now is the closure of the last AfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the instructions at the top of the drv, "When making recommendations, please use 'delete' or 'restore' where possible, as "endorse closure" is not particularly informative in this saga with at least six closures." Phr 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, there's some disagreement about which closure we're discussing, as the lead section of the DRV mentions both the closure of AfD #4 and Zoe's speedy deletion afterward. To stay on topic, I'd like people to base their comments on at least one of the closures, not on the article itself, because we've had enough unproductive discussion of the article. And maybe you meant to do so, in a way I don't understand. Do you mean that one of closing decisions hinges on whether the Belgian newspaper article is impressive? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My intent was to discuss the closing by Prodego by playing the part of Zoe challenging the closure in the nomination. Sorry if this confused anyone, but I'm sure no matter what there would be ambiguity. Kotepho 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redelete. This was previously discussed and decided in a Deletion Review discussion. The recreation of the page should have been speedy-deleted. The last deletion review discussion as the last "in-process" decision made. The intervening AFD discussion is, in my opinion, moot. Yes, a single published source has now been found for this topic. But that was raised in the last deletion review discussion and failed to convince the community to change their opinions. I personally find a single human interest story on a slow news day to be insufficient to support an encyclopedia article. This remains a non-article. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be anal at this point: The source was added very late into the discussion, and as can be observed had very little time to propagate. --Kizor 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This source wasn't viewed by the community at large. The closing admin, sure. But in the most recent AFD, an admin who had been uninvolved until that point found it sufficient to keep the article in existance. Regardless, this RfD is in effect serving the same purpose, as people are evaluating whether this article is going to meet the standards for WP:V. Darquis 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would disagree with this assessment. The reference to this source was available for several days before the prior DRV discussion was finally closed. In my observation, I have seen that the participants on the Deletion Review page tend to be pretty compulsive and regularly return to and re-read discussions, checking for new facts and modifying their opinions as they feel appropriate. The fact that others did not change their opinions is, to me, reasonably good circumstantial evidence that they were unconvinced by the new evidence. That assumption is being tested here and, I believe, supported by the comparison of opinions between this discussion and the previous one. Few of the people who argued against the article last time have changed their opinions this time around. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the people not changing their opinion this time may be telling, and people rereading and rechecking DRV or AfD is true in my experience, I'm going to have to disagree on one major point here. You said available for several days before the prior DRV discussion was finally closed. According to the timestamp on his comment, the closing admin closed the DRV a mere seven hours after the new article was found. Given the length of the DRV up until that point (well over 300 hours), we're talking about less than 2.5 percent of the DRV's length from this article being presented until close. I'm not saying that this should change or reenforce opinions, just clarifying (having all the info can definitely help make a decision). Darquis 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected on the timing. Rossami (talk)
  • One' newspaper article does not make a sourced areticle. Remember, this is claimed to be a widespread global phenomenon, and an entire website was set up to solicit references - one mention in one foregn-language newspaper falls a long way short of verifiability per policy in this instance. I saw the source before voting on AfD. But the comments above are right: it should have been protected deleted ikn the first place; determination to include unverifiable material might indicate a desire for an article but it does not mean we should accept unverifiable material. SPUI's reversion of FCYTravis's edits, from "a game featured in De Morgen" (which is all that is verifiable form sources) back to claiming it as a cultural phenomenon exemplify the problems with having an article on this subject. I consider it highly unlikely that anybody who is not already a fan will ever look at the article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• True, a website was set up to get refrences. However, I don't know that said website is that popular, particularly amongst those who aren't already coming to this wiki (and thus involved in the search as it is). I'm wondering if STG.org isn't serving an identical purpose to the article's solicitation for more sources, in that anyone who would go there is already aware of that need. If anything, it's more of a fansite, and I don't think it's lack of results is indicative of anything more than the article's lack of results with its own request for more sources. Darquis 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. I would absolutely love to see this "article" deleted, but it is clear that there was no consensus so it needed to be kept. Bring it to another AfD in a couple of months. DarthVader 12:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - This was mentioned in Sociology and Psychology classes at the University of Wales in Bangor. It's a social phenomenon, and I don't see any grounds for deletion. HawkerTyphoon 13:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Can you perhaps get a source? It'd help our case. --Kizor 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentionned by students or lecturers? If the latter, do you, like the next editor (ZachPruckowski), think it inappropriate to name them? MikeHobday 06:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't note ZachPruckowski saying that he or she finds it inappropriate to name the professors, simply that they are not named. But the source that is being sought is one that provides evidence that it is a social phenomenon. I don't know that naming a professor and saying "they talked about it" would do much for WP:V right now. Darquis 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but if, for example, it got mentioned in a psychology journal, that would be nice to know. JoshuaZ 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh no, I definitely agree with that. I just don't follow that some professor at some school mentioning it in lecture (never mind how hard sourcing that is going to be) will help us if WP:V is still being debated. A (peer reviewed) psychology journal, on the flipside, would help immensely, and perhaps lend some credit towards the "social phenomenon" claim. Darquis 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. JoshuaZ 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The professor in no way devoted a lecture to it, but it came up offhandly. I never found it inappropriate to name him, it's just not something sufficient enough for WP:V (and I never intended to imply that I thought it was), and I feel it borders on WP:NOR in the sense that I attended the lecture. It was not supposed to be the dominant part of my post. As my next sentence said, this is not about WP:V, but rather about the speedy delete. --ZachPruckowski 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - I've seen it in play, and heard professors even comment on it. But that's neither here nor there, as that's a topic for a talk page or AFD. I don't see further immediate AFD solving this (I've been over some of the discussions), so I think we have to restore and consider relisting at some future date (6 month rule?) --ZachPruckowski 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That seems reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - And thank god I finally know what The Game is -- it's been bugging me for over a year now. --Richard Clegg 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore now - This whole discussion is rediculous, not only do i support putting just about anything on Wikipedia, if i had to start censoring what gets put on and what gets taken off, this would be one of the strongest keeps. The reason wikipedia is better that conventional encyclopedias is that it addapts quickly. An emerging (and some evidence says The Game has been around around a while) social trend, movement, or fashion may not make other encyclopedias by press date, but here on WP we can write up an article as it happens. All my sources indicate that knowledge of The Game is growing, therefore i see it as part of fulfillment of Wikipedia's purpose to restore the article in it's entirety. Gatherton 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Groan. Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not about emerging trends. I'm going to say the same thing I said in the last AfD. keeps based on vague personal ideas about what Wikipedia is about and not on the relevant policies and guidelines are unproductive, worsen the already low signal/noise ratio in this discussion, and are likely to cause people to say keep deleted/redelete in reaction. If you don't have a policy-based opinion, it might be better to not say it. JoshuaZ 12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My personal observations have suggested that these sorts of votes tend to result in a differing analysis; the more nonsense votes, the less arsed the closing admin is and the more likely they are to wimp out and say "no consensus". Kinitawowi 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Either way, they aren't useful. JoshuaZ 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and restore. It seems apparent that there is sufficent refrence to this game in other sources, and there is quite obviously no consensus. Additionaly, I have seen the vast proliferation of the game everywhere I have traveled in the past few years and it would seem that the claim of social phenomenon is absoloutly accurate. Thus I feel that alone is sufficent to warrent this article's existence. Jeremy 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore. Per Polotet. AfD is still in-process, even if speedy deletion was an option. One cow[girl] administrator's novel ideas aside, there is no consensus on the issue of verifiability, which defaults to a keep. hoepfully we can put this absolutely ludicrous debate to rest for at least a while.Gsham 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? -- llywrch 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy as cited by the wub "?!"MrD 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV has been up for a week now; can we close the damn thing?

There is, of course, some ambiguity in the closing rules because both sides believe their action is "endorse closure", which gets an advantage in the counting rules (it only requires a majority, not a 3/4 supermajority). Right now I count about 45 restore votes to 16 delete, a 73% majority. So here are a few options for closure:

1. Count both options as closures, so the majority wins and the article is kept.
2. Count both options as overturns, so neither option makes the 3/4 supermajority (though "restore" misses by just 2%), and we have to relist the discussion as AfD #5, where there is a snowball's chance in hell of a consensus being reached, so the article will end up kept anyway. This is the "wikilawyer" option.
3. Count the options asymmetrically. This will function exactly the same as one of the above arguments, except it gives people the opportunity to call you biased and thus creates even more conflict. This is almost the most disruptive possible choice, except for:
4. "Go cowboy" and speedy delete the article.

I've put those options in order of how much conflict they'll create. Note that the first three end up keeping the article, eventually. Is there any reasonable justification for choosing an option besides the first? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You forgot option #5: wimp out, say "no consensus to do anything whatsoever" and... do nothing whatsoever. Kinitawowi 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) Someone else suggested going to ArbCom, but since this is essentially a content issue, that's not a good idea. JoshuaZ 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More serious reply The problem faced at present is that not only is there the ambiguity as to the meaning of "endorse clousre", but it's also not entirely clear which decision this DRV is actually reviewing. Is it reviewing the last no-con AfD or the speedy; and if the article was speedied, why is there currently an article? Etc. Of the options suggested, only #2 and #4 have any hope of leading to a resolution - and #2 will just be closed as per #5. Sigh. Also, I'm not sure I like the description of deleting the article as "going cowboy"; if the decision is made to concur with the speedy deletion (which may or may not be the case), then deleting the article is the right course of action. "Going cowboy" is just perjorative. Kinitawowi 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Given that 73% are in favor of restoration, deleting it without an AfD at this point would be unwarranted. JoshuaZ 02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Not necessarily. As per Aaron Brenneman closing the last DRV on the article, it should have been deleted and permanently locked. Zoe's actions could be justifiable as an attempt to restore the state of the article to that position. Finally, I thought this place was built on consensus? The moment you start hand-counting opinions and bandying around figures, this place becomes a vote; which will always be won by Keep by sheer weight of number of plonkers on the Intarwob. (I accept that that's probably a rant for another place, however.) Kinitawowi 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my above comment. What I meant was that the 73% makes it hard to claim at this point in time that there is a consensus to delete. Incidentally, I think bringing it back to AfD may be the most sensible thing. JoshuaZ 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Egad! When I say "wikilawyer", I mean that as a bad thing. What would be accomplished by relisting on AfD, besides prolonging this overblown debate another five days and guaranteeing us all a place on WP:LAME? We'll just come to the same conclusion (no consensus) we would have come to if Zoe hadn't showed up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was thinking not in terms of policy (I can't see a very good policy reason to relist) but as a reasonable compromise that will make the most people happy. Compromise is good. JoshuaZ 06:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Another AfD will simply be a madhouse (again, nothing has changed since the last one) and have no end result worthy of interpretation. To satisfy everyone's concerns, we simply need a structured debate over the verifiability of the article's source. ~ PseudoSudo 06:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment One more time: there is no process for creating articles, and it's OK to take something that's a potential speedy candidate to AFD. And if it survives AFD, it's not a speedy candidate as a recreation any more. There's no basis to say the most recen AFD was "out of process" and that deletion is therefore the default state. And frankly, I think relisting this on AFD would just waste a lot more of a lot of people's time. It just went through AFD with no consensus, now it's gone through DRV with no real consensus, another run on AFD will just cause more bad blood and have no productive result. I personally think option 1 works fine, as many people arguing the article should be kept did so on the basis of the proper AFD closure which Zoe disputed with her deletion.-Polotet 03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, to summarize your position: Deleting this article because the single, sorry-assed article that's been provided as a source offers no clue as to where any of its information comes from was illegitimate; sending out a giant fuck you to the world by spitefully recreating it while offering no new information that the deleting admin hadn't already considered was legitimate; attempting to undo this cowboy re-creation was illegitimate; and if you're still not happy with the single, sorry-assed, unsourced newspaper article that comprises the thread by which this article currently hangs, please don't try to do anything about it, because that would cause bad blood. Well, you've helped me make my mind up on one thing, at least: when this article is retained—and it will be—I'll take it back to AfD myself, if someone else doesn't get there before me. --phh (^t/_c) 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do love it when somebody misreads my comment and it leads them to decide to do soemthing completely irrational.-Polotet 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think a more accurate summary would be that Speedy Deleting before the most recent AfD would have been in process, speedying after is definitely not. There's also a lot of people who don't think that one admin should be the end all be all on a source most people hadn't seen at the time. (Of course, the proper channel then would have been to DRV it again, but it's a bit late for that). If you're not happy with the source, of course you should bring it back to AfD. I doubt it will get any more consensus than it has in the past, but feel free to try it anyway. Darquis 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment While I can't endorse the recreation after the fact, I also don't think that it should have been up to just Aaron to decide if the article satisfied the WP:V criteria for this article. I suppose taking it to DRV would have been more prudent, but I'm 99 percent sure the result would have ended up little different from what we've recieved here. Darquis 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No matter what the decision is it should probably be signed off by at least a few admins, and with a clear explaination. It would be nice if we could stop arguing over what the last "in process" action was along with arguing about the article and the closure of the xth AFD/DRV. I am unsure if AFD will achieve consensus, but some people were voting on the process instead of the article. That being said I will quote from the box at the top of DRV. If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process. There is a majority of "restore"s which (in most cases) refer to the no consensus latest closure and thus the article should be kept. The only other option (if you follow the process) would be to relist on AFD. There is certainly not a supermajority to overturn the closure. Kotepho 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (a couple of edit conflicts later)[reply]
  • How about "Option 7 - Restore, and wait to relist on AFD". I feel like that's the best solution. I mean, if we feel confident by WP:SNOW that it'll survive AFD (since it was on weeks ago), we shouldn't put it up. We can stick a notice on the talk page, asking users not to relist for 3-6 months. That'll allow time for tempers to cool and for people to maybe find more references --ZachPruckowski 06:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure and Restore- It exists, there are plenty of sites noting it, just KEEP IT ALIVE !! --SeanMcG 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your vote doesn't seem to have much to do with deletion policy. We're not discussing the content of the article, but the decisions that have been made about its deletion. Also, spreading the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is necessary to "keep The Game alive" or "save The Game" is extremely counterproductive. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, on the contrary; this vote adds another one towards the Magical 75% that gets the article arbitrarily kept. Kinitawowi 12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An admin doing the closing can ignore keep and delete votes that are unrelated to deletion review. The keep votes will still have the majority. 75% is irrelevant unless you can justify counting "keep" as an "overturn" decision. I mentioned that as part of the "wikilawyer option" but didn't expect people to shove the beans up their noses that quickly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and protect from editing- I think that it should stay on wikipedia. There is newspaper article about it. --[eddie] - pure ginger 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm confused by your comment, what justification is there for protecting it? As I understand the protection policy, the two basic reasons an artice can be protected is to 1) prevent a temporary edit war 2) deal with an extreme vandalism attack. JoshuaZ 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. In regard "the most common usage on the internet", there's no way of knowing. (The most common usage in real life is impossible to determine, unless one has access to NSA surveillance tapes.) Unless one of the search engines can be coerced into search for "[tT]he Game" in exact case, we have no way of determining what the most common use of "The Game" is. (In fact, that's not really adequate either, because it will detect The Name of the Game, an episodic TV series, and any other TV and movie titles with "the game" in title case. The search for "I just lost the game" would suggests that this is the most common individual game, but even that is questionable, as that phrase is part of the rules. I might see the newspaper article as demonstration of some part of WP:V, but it doesn't eliminate — or even significantly reduce — the possiblity that it's an Internet hoax.

Comment (restore): looking over this debate.. enough is enough already. The article has been verified by a significantly decent source. De Morgen is a big paper. But I would like to stress: the article needs trimming down to only the facts stated in the paper and little more. If it starts expanding to where it was last time, then we will have a wp:v issue. -- Alfakim --  talk  19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article doesn't include the possibility that it's a hoax, it will suffer from serious WP:V problems. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment I disagree. Unless, of course, you think the DeMorgan article was a hoax, and that there's a massive band of people spread across the internet trying to pull one over on Wikipedia. Darquis 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I also disagree, no one (I think) is arguing that The Game doesn't exist, merely whether it has a WP:V source. Calling it a "hoax" without a source would be unsourced speculation. JoshuaZ 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't eliminate, even from the translation in the article's talk page, the possibility that the "article" is a column similar to Dave Barry's — with no intention of asserting acuraccy. (No one has stated specifically that the article was a news item rather than a column.) As has been pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was previously confused by your logic and am now highly confused. First, what is the "extraordinary claim" here? Second, since when was a Carl Sagan quote part of WP:V? Third, what do you mean by claiming it might be a hoax? Everyone agrees that the game exists and that people play it. The issue is whether we have a WP:V source and whether it meets WP:N, so what exactly is your worry about hoaxes? JoshuaZ 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The that the game is widespread has no verification (including the article), and seems implausible. I'm willing to accept that it is played, and that it is not the case that all the referents on the web are people "pretending" to play the game, although I find it more plausible that someone would pretend to play the game than to actually play the game. Personally, I think it would only meet WP:N if it were intially a hoax, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment There must be a lot I'm missing here because your last few sentences seem to be a sequence of non sequitors (I apologize for the abuse of language), how would whether or not it is a hoax in any way change the WP:N status and since when was there a WP:N issue? Can you please be more explicit in your logic for your last three comments? Thanks, JoshuaZ 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Arthur, people play The Game for number of reasons. Personally, I find it interesting to see what causes people to think of The Game, and hence lose. Sometimes these will be obvious causes, such as talking about other games, but at other times the reasons will be completely abstract. Various associations also build up. For example, if I lose for whatever reason and happen to be looking at the words "Arthur Rubin", then the next time I see those words I might lose. The more it happens the stronger the association becomes. It is sometimes difficult for players to pinpoint the exact thought process that lead to their loss. The Game is efectively an arbitrary thought that can be used to investigate memory and association. Also, habituation to The Game is interesting. Kernow 15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and restore. Per various comments above, meets criteria albeit barely. May be biased, of course, speaking as a player. -- Peas 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and restore: I really don't see a problem here. Article was written put up for AfD, consensus was to delete, subsequently confirmed by DRV. New article is written, addressing WP:V concerns, article is taken to AfD as recreation of deleted content, AfD decides it's fine. Totally within process. --David.Mestel 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another thing. I think it was highly improper for Zoe to delete the page if she voted in the AfD. --David.Mestel 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as improper as it was for the creator of DRV #1 to decide that the closing admin's decision wasn't good enough for them, and remove the protection on the deleted article? WarpstarRider 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it would have been better for another admin to unprotect the page, it has been judged by the AfD that it was not recreated content. --David.Mestel 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redelete, keep deleted, whatever. I've said pretty much all I can say about this in previous debates. I'm getting tired of it, and I don't see why this nonsense needs to be here in the first place. It's just not encyclopedic, and all I ever have seen the article used for is the collection of original research, and the supposed "players" using it to lure people in and spread it around. (It can be seen as advertising, in a way)
  Regarding the last AfD, maybe I'm disagreeing with the policy on these decisions or something. I don't see why a wimp-out decision of "uh...I dunno" on an article that should not have been recreated in the first place is regarded the same as a majority consensus to keep. (It should've been a speedy candidate in my opinion...the argument against it was that the recreated article was different enough from the cruft-tacular article that was put through AfD #3 to dodge the "recreation of deleted content" qualification.)
  Just get rid of this and be done with it. WarpstarRider 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a candidate for speedy. Until someone took it to AfD and it passed (as closed by an admin uninvolved until asked to evaluate and close the AfD). It should have gone back to DRV instead of being recreated, but since it passed AfD... Darquis 06:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the problem I have. An admin looking in there, shrugging their shoulders and saying "I dunno...no consensus" shouldn't count as "passing" AfD if the article should not have even existed, immediately after a DRV that said it should've stayed deleted. WarpstarRider 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three issues with yout statement: First, as already pointed out, the new version of the article is very arguably a new version and thus acceptable as a recreation without going through another review. Second, even if it shouldn't have been recreated, that's makes a speedy candidate, and it is acceptable to take a contested speedy to AfD, which is what happened here. Third, as far as I can tell (and I've reread all the relevant guidelines and policies again to make sure), a no consensus defaulting to keep if fundamentally identical to a keep for all policy purposes in an AfD excepting that the closing admin has more leeway about deleting or keeping it. Prodego put time into considering his decision and explained it in in his closing why he decided as he did. If you think such AfDs should not count as passing, that's a policy issue that should be taken up as a policy discussion, not something that should be decided by an ad hoc deletion review. JoshuaZ 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"First, as already pointed out, the new version of the article is very arguably a new version and thus acceptable as a recreation without going through another review." O RLY? Here's the diff between the version that was deleted on March 23 and the version that User:Ashibaka unilaterally brought back from the dead on March 27: [3]. As far as I can tell, the "new" version differs from the "old" in that the AfD notice was removed, and a couple of links were removed. And that's it. Are you seeing something I'm not? --phh (^t/_c) 15:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Wrong illegitimate re-creation! This article is very confusing. Here's the correct diff: [4]. Again, basically the same article except that everything in the newer version comes from the source that the closing admin had just rejected as failing to meet WP:V. --phh (^t/_c) 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In so far as there was a new source, the De Morgen article, and the principle issue was having a source that met WP:RS, yes it is very reasonable to see it as new content. And even if it weren't new content, the second and third point still stand. JoshuaZ 15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Now responding to new observation, after striking out of old) As already pointed out the De Morgen source was on the first review page for all of about 2.5% of the review time, which is in not anyway evidence of an existing consensus. Indeed, the fact that the subsequent AfD was a no consensus is strong evidence that if the people involved in the primary review had been aware of the De Morgen article many might have responded differently. Furthermore, the second and third points above still stand by any account. JoshuaZ 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and restore - Certainly this article now seems to meet WP:V - why this article has attracted so much attention on the grounds that it's unverifiable is quite mysterious, since there are many, many, many more articles which actually are failing on verifiability grounds and yet remain undeleted. QmunkE 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with your general sentiment, it is fallacious to say that any given article should stay because there are more egregious ones. The response to that is "we'll get around to dealing with those later" or something like that. JoshuaZ 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and important note The article has now been moved to The Game (meme) (despite the absence of any WP:V-satisfying WP:RSs making any reference at all to a meme...). Kinitawowi 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not a game. The article doesn't state or imply it's a game. I'd accept another title, although I still don't see strong evidence of WP:V anywhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The name of the article is essentially unrelated to this review. Please keep discussion related to the merits of the article name to the relevant talk page. This is confusing and complicated enough a review as is. JoshuaZ 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request that someone get around to closing this This has been open since the 22, much longer than DRs are normally kept around. Could some admin please close this? JoshuaZ 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a request for an uninvolved admin at WP:AN. I request that other users in this discussion don't try to turn that request into yet another forum for arguing over the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article below. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, I don't know where exactly. Maybe the talk page?