Deletion of The Game (game) (2 nomination)

Comment: What about ? We've lost track of Wikipedia's ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's ''existence'', then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing ''any'' information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Wikipedia's true goal. Now, I understand that verfiability via citation of authoritative sources is a perfectly legitimate guideline ''most'' of the time, but obviously this is a special case. For one, I believe that given the circumstances, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22I%27ve+just+lost+the+game%22&btnG=Google+Search would be a perfectly acceptable citation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:UCS)

Comment: alas, I've been trying to make some headway in the article, but at this point I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the {{original_research}} tag. As one editor said, "We have become the foremost source for information about The Game,"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Game_%28game%29&diff=41498377&oldid=41486912 and that's  what Wikipedia is for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: A game that is well-known, not something made up at school one day, undoubtedly notable. Where in |the policy is there grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: The current version is ''better'', but still has original research. Anything that is not the three rules is, at this point, original research, and even the rules have verifiability problems in the traditional sense. We do not have verification: We have one website that suffers from credibility. We cannot  about this... the goal is not to document fun games or social memes; the goal is to produce an encyclopedia based on verifiable information. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:UCS)

Comment: Well then this should definitely be a keep since when in doubt one is supposed to keep. I think the above in any event with  says keep pretty strongly, but apparently there is a lot of disagreement
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:UCS)

Comment: non-notable and can only be verified from hearsay and a few blogs, which means the article is creating a primary source, which is not allowed under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This game is |complete bollocks, but that's not really a reason for deletion (though it is a reason to pray for the future of our planet).  If it's so widespread, '''transwiki''' the rules to Wikibooks.  This article is basically nothing without them, so delete as {{Template:db-empty|db-empty
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)