Deletion of Threshold (online game) (2nd nomination)

Comment: I never saw the deleted version, but based upon the sources now, I think it meets sourcing requirements. I strongly advise regulars to AFD read that blog Catchpole links to above. Not only is it one of the most strongly-worded critcisms I've seen of Wikipedia in awhile, I think it's an important reality check to see what sort of impact AFD and the rush to delete makes on the non-Wikipedia world. If the article cited was a lone wolf in the wilderness I'd see it as being just that, a lone wolf, but it's not. Incidentally, I believe we're into |snowball keep territory now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: but still find fault on both sides of the discussion. The only reason this marginally passes for notability now is because of the ruckus caused by the meatpuppets who propagated the previous AFD, which seems to show that anyone can get their way if they troll and bully their way through (as also shown in the DRV). On the flipside, possibly a case of , which serves to make editors look like |dicks trying to |game the system, as well. With that said, thanks to the editors who |own the article who have improved it to a standard suitable for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED||WP:DICK||WP:GAME||WP:OWN)

Comment: Notability guidelines speak of a ''presumption'' of notability, established by |objective evidence ''such as'' substantial coverage in reliable sources. In specific topic areas, such as music and sport, there exist specialized guidelines which permit the use of less-substantial coverage to establish a presumption of notability. It remains unclear to me whether a lesser standard can or should be applied here. As to whether the recent media coverage passes , I remain skeptical but unsure as to where the line is drawn. However, it seems that at ''worst'' a redirect per Marasmusine should be the result. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOBJ||WP:GNG)

Comment: strongly, per most all above, and suggest a |speedy keep.  There does seem to be some misguided zeal to remove articles about Internet culture and fictional worlds, and in this particular case that zeal has led to results that have been justly noticed and criticized elsewhere.  This never ought to have become an issue in the first instance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per the reason given in the nomination and per Crossmr. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: The subject is notable per obvious consensus. (
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)