Deletion of Slave Hack

Comment: The "Digg article" is not an article but appears to be some sort of blog or forum post. WP:WEB is a guideline and authoritative as such. As with WP:SOFTWARE, it boils down to demanding |reliable published sources for any claim of notability, which are not in evidence in this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The Digg article establishes notability.  is not policy, the same goes for , the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:SOFTWARE)

Comment: Per Cyde and Sandstein.  This article's references fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Non notable. Fails , ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOFTWARE||WP:WEB||WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you |own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: This nomination is obviously made in violation of  in retaliation against me (the editor who started and basically wrote the article) as I am currently in a dispute with Cyde and I told him about 20 minutes ago that I'm considering reporting his actions at /I
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:AN)

Comment: In what way does this violate 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find . I suggest a '''Speedy Let Me Relist''', because it's rather obvious that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)