Deletion of The Game (game) (fifth nomination)

Comment: per , although ''De Morgen'' is a reputable Belgium newspaper, one small newspaper clipping from one newspaper is simply not enough, as one newspaper can make a mistake too. Also seems a spin-off from The Game (film), but that's just my own original research and isn't backed up by any sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: sourced and notable. The majority of ''Delete'' voters seem to think that Wikipedia requires mulitple sources for verification. The closest thing I could find to this is "you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source" (), this is a long way from ''requiring'' multiple sources. Another mistake many ''Delete'' voters are making is the assumption that the 21st Feb deletion of the Lost (game) article is somehow relevant to whether or not ''this'' article should exist. That article was deleted because an article about The Game already existed here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per all of the wiki-bet soup policies the nominator brought up, particularly  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: per , the notability of the thing seems to come primarily from Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: There simply aren't enough |reliable sources to merit an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Lacks multiple reliable sources for verification - even after very extended amount of time (8 months since first afd discussion) for new sources to arise and despite special initiative by Game fans to find sourceshttp://www.savethegame.org/wiki/Compiled_list_of_sources as well as despite their special deliberate initiative to plant mentions in the media. On this http://www.losethegame.com/strategies.htm page on losethegame.com, planting mentions in the media is recommended as a game strategy. Sole "reliable source" media reference is, in fact, unreliable. The article is trivial in content - it is not a news report but a column (so not subject to news fact-checking). Furthermore, the writer does not substantiate his claims about the popularity of the game, and people should consider that the writer himself may be playing the game (since spreading word of the game is supposed to be "winning" behaviour). (I've lost the link that had the translation of the original article. I'll try and find it again) The writer is also wrong when he claims that readers who read his article have played the game and lost (though this is an indication that he himself is playing the game). One only loses by wanting to play the game (One can think about the game and not "lose" anything if one doesnt' want to play). WarGames|This is a stupid game - the only way to win is, in fact, not to play. In any case, this article fails non-negotiable policy  by failing  and is a good example of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NFT)

Comment: I was previously a major proponent of keeping this article. However, at this point, after three months I have concluded that 1) it is not notable (if it we're the many people trying to find sources would have found more than 1 by now) 2) The De Morgen article only barely meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: WP:V is policy.  Consensus can not trump policy (if 1 in 4 AFDs keeping even is a consensus to keep).  Absence of multiple reliable sources after an extended opportunity to generate them and multiple discussions is more than adequate evidence that such sources do not exist at the present time.  Accordingly, the article should be deleted, and deletion review should not send it back again absent evidence of multiple reliable sources.  Once we have multiple reliable sources, we can move on to the not yet adequately answered questions as to whether this is notable/encyclopedic.  It sure looks like a prime case for elimination under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: okay, so in the four months since I last argued for its deletion, the article itself has improved. Unfortunately the verifiability has not. However many hundreds of blog hits there are, blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. We have: one article in a newspaper. (An article which, at the time, people said looked very similar to the Wikipedia article.) One article in three months of people looking for more information? , . Zap, pow, blam, delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: as failing  and  per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: still fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Even if De Morgen is a , (which is still in dispute, regardless of assertions in previous AfD's), we (or at least, those who haven't read the original newspaper) don't know if it's the article is a column, as Dave Barry's in the Miami Herald (and syndicated around the world), or a human-interest news article.  If it's a column, we're back to having '''no''' reliable sources. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: again per .  We've waiting long enough for a second , and it hasn't appeared.  &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: This should have gone ages ago, but has been part of a very concerted campaign to be kept despite the clear guidelines of  and  (I remember the Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game)|first deletion review). This makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to indirectly promote http://www.losethegame.com/ losethegame.com, but that's really irrelevant to the question of whether the article should be kept or not. One source doesn't come close
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)