Deletion of LUEshi (7th nomination)

Comment: TEG, unless you can somehow prove that people are being lured here to serve as blind voters, please don't throw around the accusation.  You cherry-picked , which gives three criteria, and only one of them needs to be met.  "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."  Given that this is simply a meme, "distributed" could reasonably be interpreted to mean that an explanation, as well as the ASCII itself, are present on the site.  A quick google search shows Urbandictionary, encyclopediadramatica, and YTMND all on the first page, with YTMND having 43 hits for "LUEshi" and the other two having articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per nom, WarpstarRider, , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:WEB)

Comment: does not even assert meeting any of the criteria of , before we even get to the issues about reliable sources and verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: and redirect to GameFAQs. Honestly, I'd been considering nominating this again myself for a while. Simply put, this is yet another example of unverifiable internet stuff that's been kept around due to a lot of , meatpuppetry, and other such nonsense. The only sources here are archived GameFAQs message board posts, which are far from |reliable sources. Any claims to notability need to be backed up with verifiable information from reliable sources, and there really isn't any in this case.Meanwhile, note that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi (5th nomination)|second-to-last AfD ended with a suggestion for a merge to GameFAQs message boards, which never materialized. That article has since been merged into the main GameFAQs article itself, which is a sign that all of the GameFAQs-related stuff should be confined to a single article.Finally, the last AfD was speedy kept as a bad-faith nom, "citing the GNAA clause". Of course, the GNAA article itself has now been deleted due to  concerns, so it's now safe to say that there isn't really any kind of policy exemption given to repeatedly-nominated articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:RS||WP:V)