Deletion of Rage Cage

Comment: Full disclosure: this is my first editation, having created a username for the express purpose of commenting here.  I can assure skeptics that I live across the country from Stanford, am not familiar with this article's author, and therefore am not a "sockpuppet."  Regarding independent sources: I have seen "rage cage" referenced in print newspapers in my area.  This presents a quandary, since though I am familiar with the game and have seen it referenced in sources independent from the Stanford Daily, these articles are not online and therefore are not available for quotation to support this site.  I am therefore forced to reject this article per .  Topics such as drinking games fall into a difficult middle ground-- though the subjects and terms themselves are often well-known across wide varieties of groups, they are only rarely referenced in print, and when referenced are published in papers or magazines which are localized by area (such as college campuses, which in many cases would fall prey to the independence requirement) or topic (such as city arts and entertainment papers, which are often not posted online). Such bias therefore precludes them from wiki inclusion, even if their widely acknowledged existence falls within the "spirit" of wikipedia. If it comes to a choice of spirit vs. rules, I vote spirit.  I would keep this article based on my own experience and intiution that this topic deserves inclusion under the spirit of wikipedia, despite its arguable violation of one of its rules
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: You are correct that reliable sources are needed to establish that this is "not just something made up in school." The  page that you linked to includes the following
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NFT)

Comment: I disagree that  is the only issue. The problem isn't that ''"Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game."'' The problem is that Google fails to bring up results that ''are'' relevant. The only relevant result I can find is the Stanford "Beerlympics" piece cited in the article. So, it is not "common knowledge" that this is a widespread game, even in a local area.  does apply, and |verifiable citations from |reliable sources are needed to establish that this is not just FT|something made up in school
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NFT)

Comment: Appears to be a |very local drinking game. Also appears to be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NOR)

Comment:  is the most legitimate argument against this article. Mangojuice is correct that a Google Search for “Rage Cage” brings up many similarly-named topics unrelated to this drinking game. It’s worth noting that the game is often simply called “Speed Quarters” – this is actually a predecessor that already exists in WP and results in numerous Google hits. Many of these hits describe the variant that this article calls “Rage Cage.” Of course, Google is not the final arbiter of notability.The game is widely played in a specific region. This regional predominance is correctly noted by Porqin. Whether or not this constitutes non-notability is up to the admins. As I live in the region where the game is relevant, I think it is notable. Wikipedia would lose much of its relevance to casual users if national and/or international recognition became a necessary condition for inclusion.  is a critical rule, but I believe it’s too ephemeral and subjective to be the sole factor for elimination here.Please follow the link to an MLA formatting guide for a defense to the OR assertion.http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/02/ MLA dictates that “You do not need to give sources for familiar proverbs, well-known quotations or common knowledge. Remember, this is a rhetorical choice, based on audience” (scroll down to the “When a Citation is not Needed” header). I am admittedly new enough to Wikipedia that I don’t know the generally-accepted citation rules, but I presume that the rules that apply to academic papers would also suffice here. In browsing through other well-developed WP articles, it seems that the stardards are perhaps even more lenient than that.The FT assertion is poorly informed. It’s understandable those unfamiliar with the topic would attribute their unfamiliarity to FT. However, the game is widely played, albeit in a regional setting. As with most informal competitions, and nearly all drinking games, its origins are impossible to document, but its proponents would assert that the game has undoubtedly existed for more than a decade.This article needs cleanup, and contributions from outside of the San Francisco area are necessary. However, I don’t agree that it should be deleted. I do value this discussion, and look forward to your comments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:NFT)