Deletion of The Game (game) (6th nomination)

Comment: The AFD listing says that "The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all."  It doesn't.  There's no reason there can't be a decent news report or similar about the game, it's just that we haven't found a good one in English yet.  The article even has a reference, it's just that it's in Dutch, and the website's registration system is currently broken so we can't read the article.  It is |verifiable, it's just not adequately verified yet.  The listing then says "As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth."  That's not true either.  Anyone can and does add their own nonsense, as with any article: this is a wiki.  Like any other article good changes are kept and unverifiable |POV nonsense is Talk:The Game (game)#LoseTheGame.com|argued about and removed.  Clearly we need to improve the references for this article, but it's just as clear we shouldn't delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:POV)

Comment:  has changed significantly since the last AfD. It now requires ''multiple'' published sources which this article does not have. Editors that want this article kept should really be discussing  and whether a topic with only one published source can still be notable. Someone should find out the reason it was changed to require multiple sources in the first place
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: A quick facebook search gives several "global" groups with 1000+ total (reg. req'd).  I realize that a facebook group isn't a quantifier of notoriety but it serves to indicate, at least, that this is somewhat more than |something made up in school one day
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: From : "'''This page is considered a Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines|guideline on Wikipedia'''. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules|occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It requires stretching multiple policies/guidelines to justify keeping this article.  At some point, we reach the elastic limit.  Foreign-language sources without reliable translation are a stretch to .  So is an article that depends on subscription-only sources.  A single source cannot satisfy , so we need to stretch that guideline.  Keeping an article on a topic that derives much of its notability from its presence in Wikipedia is a stretch to .  I just don't stretch that far.  If we aren't going to salt, we may as well not bother deleting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:COI)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not for things made up in school one day.  That includes grade school gags, games, jokes, fun-making, etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: facebook and losethegame.com do not qualify under . No matter how many people know about it, it still doesn't pass wikipedias policys ( ) as well as it falls under . And everyone seems to say that so many people play the game and have heard of it, yet know one i know has every heard of this game. --Malevious
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NFT)

Comment: I was looking for other sources, and the other Wikipedias seem to have the same problem.  The only different sources that are listed there are a page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A807068 bbc.co.uk and http://www.insertcredit.com/features/london2004/ insertcredit.com.  The BBC article is a user-created article for the "Hitchhiker's Guide Encyclopedia".  I'm having issues figuring out if the article is #editorial_oversight|reliable, since it does appear to be peer edited.  I was unable to determine much about the relability of the other site. (If this is not an appropriate place to discus this I will gladly move it the the article's talk page.) &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Ah, my ''bête noire''. Fails /. The single foreign language article used in support of this article is ''not'' reliable - not a news article with proper vetting process, but a whimisical column; also the author appears to be playing "the game" himself.  This article has been given ample time for better sources to show up and there has even been an online campaign with an its own special website tasked since March 2006 to find such references for the article or - indeed, to deliberately plant such references in the media - see this mission statement on the website:http://www.savethegame.org/wiki/Lose_The_Game "''The Lose The Game campaign is an attempt to influence major media outlets into covering The Game, thus providing "reliable sources" to cite on Wikipedia''" and the http://www.savethegame.org/wiki/List_of_reliable_sources_referring_to_The_Game list of reliable sources so far found or planted by the campaign. This has gone on too long. Let's finish this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Doesn't in any way fail 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: The subject is known to be real and notable. There is no doubt of its existence and nature. To destroy the article is to harm Wikipedia as a reference work. It has been noted that the ''De Morgen'' article is in a foreign language. If that's an argument, you're free to nominate the tens of thousands of articles on non-English things that rely on non-English sources.  states that foreign sources should be treated the same if there's a published translation or the original is cited, as it is here. It has been noted that the existence of this article creates controversy and bad spirits. In no way is that more damaging than the alternative, letting one party have its way because it shouted louder
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: and '''Salt''' this has been an ongoing debate since 2004, since march 06 http://www.savethegame.org/wiki/List_of_reliable_sources_referring_to_The_Game this notice has been soliciting sources for the article that meet  and  standards and it has only found one non-english reference. As for salting this article it has been previously deleted the recreated and deleted also been to DRV with ''keep deleted'' then it was recreated anyway, if its deleted any recreation should only occur via  or /I where notiablilty, and verifiable source can be discussed and reviewed first
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:DRV||WP:AN)

Comment: It has one reliable source right now, and needs at least one more to pass .  But  is a guideline, not policy, so occasional exceptions are allowed.  One is enough to satisfy , which is policy.  I think in this case we can allow the article to stay.  It would certainly be nice to have more sources since the article can't expand beyond what is currently there, but I don't think it should be deleted until more are found, since the source provided seems reliable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: Fails , , FT, and probably more
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NFT)

Comment: Fails , and i suppose a whole bunch of other polices as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Almost by definition, this is |something made up one day.  It isn't a board game or a computer game or anything similar; its a meme.  It has been mentioned in one (1) newspaper, in a way that doesn't appear to be remotely close to the tone of a traditional newpaper article.  I suspect this was a humor piece, at best.  Furthermore, the presence of a website with the self-stated goal of convincing otherwise reliable sources to cover the topic ''for the purpose'' of earning recognition as a |verifiable topic here is disturbing.  Keeping in mind that the article ''itself'' suggests that knowledge of the game is scant in the article's likely audience (but high in places with heavy Wikipedia participation), I do not think it is |a violation of good faith to believe the website's goal was successful, and that this article exists because ''De Morgan'' did not realize it was being used by those wishing to prop up a Wikipedia article.  With the danger of incestuous amplification so high in this case, we should be demanding correspondingly stringent references ... not one unserious article in a relatively minor foreign-language newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:V||WP:AGF)