Deletion of The Game (game) (4th nomination)

Comment: Still no reliable sources, still unverifiable, still violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: just barely.  Notability is beyond question; verifiability ''is'' a serious issue, but has been addressed sufficiently to prevent deletion.  If non-English sources violate , a lot of my own work on Korea-related articles will go down the tubes.  If unsourced newspaper articles are unacceptable -- well, then this article is just the tip of a whole sunken continent of deletions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Why will it always violate ? If the phenomenon were thoroughly researched and the results published by several reliable, independent sources, would you still claim that it violates policy? I can't imagine why it would. (For that matter, I don't see why anyone would claim that it currently does, except for the possibility that the newspaper article's authors got their information from Wikipedia, which should not be presumed to be the case unless there's any hard evidence that they did.) &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: again). Per the discussion on Talk:The Game (game), there is a high likelihood that the 'source' was in fact based on our article. Even without the tell-tale signs, it does not explain where it got its information from and is next to useless in terms of |verifiability. "The Game was also mentioned in an advertisement in MacWorld and MacAddict publications" sums up this article as having been written purely to survive deletion rather than to provide anyone with factual information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Besides being a recreation of deleted content (which it is, references to unknown-sourced Belgian newspapers be damned), it still doesn't hold up against  (which is, lest we forget, the entire reason the article was eventually deleted in the first place and the reason it didn't come back after ). Furthermore, if this page is deleted I would like to see it locked against all editing (not just from non-logged-in users, and except possibly certain admins) to prevent an article which ''went through due process in AfD, due process in DRV, was deleted, and is now up for a FOURTH DELETION'' from being recreated again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:DRV)

Comment: Clever idea, glad I heard about it, but profoundly non-notable and unable to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per previous results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game).  A Belgian newspaper article that requires registration doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that a reliable source would otherwise give me.  The link could be a link to the classified section, for all I know.  The undeletion should have taken place at , not as part of a wheel war.  Now that the page is back, the problems are back
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: Very simple case of . Nothing to talk about really
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Extremely notable, verifiability seems to depend on interpretation, and therefore the controversy over the legitimacy of the source should be included in the article as per  as first mentioned by Kernow:  "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Also... while this didn't directly affect my vote, I would advise many of those arguing for deletion to use more measured language, if they actually wish to be taken seriously.  While I realize that much of the hostile, abusive language directed at this article has become commonplace on AfD, these tirades certainly violate  as ''I'' understand it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Could someone who wants to delete this please explain how the current version does not meet  or some other necessary condition? It has a newspaper reference and no one seems to be arguing that it is not-notable. And could those who are voting speedy please explain what speedy condition they want it to be speedied under
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: as |unverifiable because in the end however notable it is,  is firm policy.  Notability is only a guideline and does not trump policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: and keep deleting. The external link in the current article is a primary source excluded per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The newspaper source already seems to have been shot down in DRV wasn't accepted by the closing admin in the DRV, and this article clearly doesn't meet  without it. Furthermore, the article was recreated out of process, as noted by WarpstarRider. If people want it restored, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I knew about this game from experience about 2 years ago. I checked Wikipedia then to see if we had an article on it. Sure enough, we did. That was good enough for me then.  has a flaw. Wikipedia is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. In the case of The Game, it certainly exists, there is sufficient Google hits to document the information and therefore verify the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Then why did the nominator cite  and FT as reasons for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NFT)

Comment: It's been established prior to this that the game passes , and with the newspaper article it appears to pass . Wikipedia's role is to report on what other's say, and provide a source, not to make an original judgement on the source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I'm in favor of keeping this article due to sourcing but the above argument is simply ridiculous. Wikipedia should not be allowed to report on new facts. See 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I'm copying my comment from Talk:The Game (game) here, since many editors seem to regard  as an annoying hurdle to be jumped over in order to write their article, rather than what an article should be based upon in the first place
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Poorly written and unverified apocrypha. Precisely what an encyclopedia is |not for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)