Deletion of DKP (2nd nomination)

Comment: In other words, it's #PUBLISHER|original thought not published anywhere else? If WOWWiki or any other gaming wiki wants to write about DKP, they're free to. A single whitepaper does not constitute multiple independent reliable sources, so it doesn't belong here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: this is '''totally unsourced'''!  There are literally no sources in this this entire article - if this is seriously a "notable" and "enduring" concept, then where are the facts.  I could go through this with a {{Citation needed|date=July 2011}} gun, and literally every single fact would be suspect.  I mean, the ''lead'' of the article contains a factual assertion with no sourcing!  I can't believe people are willing to totally ignore policy and keep an article that violates policy so blatantly basically because |they like it.  Source it or delete it - don't dither around with content like this.  It's either encyclopedic, and you can source it, or it's unverifiable |original research and should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:OR)

Comment: Per , ''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'' The policy further goes on to state that self-published sources are not acceptable as sources.  For this reason I must discount the links to guild websites as unacceptable, as they are all self-published with no editorial oversight.  I must also discount the links to Stratics and TenTonHammer for the same reasons as being self-published sources of information lacking reliable accuracy and fact-checking.  This leaves only the Daedalus project website - which, while self-published, appears to be published by an expert in the field - and the whitepaper.  Unfortunately the link on Yee's website is to a barebones dictionary definition that provides no contextual information and is insufficient as a source.  The whitepaper, depending on its content, could be the trump card needed for this article, but as the whitepaper references the Wikipedia article, its utility as a reliable source is severely limited, as we are therefore effectively self-referencing.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.  Given the fact this article ''still'' lacks any reliable sources it is still a gross violation of  and I must decline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: That WP:RS is "just a guideline" does not mean you can ignore it when you feel like it. We could just go to the relevant policies,  and : it ''is'' original research and unverifiable according to Wikipedia. We can always recreate the article ''if'' and ''when'' reliable, independent third-party sources publish research on the concept, but not before then
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: it's completely unreferenced and seems mostly complied of original research. No reliable sources provided, no article, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is rapidly becoming a re-hash of the original debate.  Yes, it's .  Yes, it exists.  Yes, it is true.  None of these things satisfies the the problem that this article does not have a ''single'' reliable resource per .  That's what makes it original research.  If it's just going to stir up the |single purpose accounts to come out and cast their !votes to keep it because it's a great article, then fine, but ''please'' would someone who wants to hang on to it provide at least a compelling argument as to how it satisfies policies and guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:RS||WP:SPA)