Deletion of XKnight Game

Comment: After reading your argument, it was your own statement of ''How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist?'' that made me decide against keeping this article.  I understand your point and I do think this is a valid, well-thought-out puzzle format.  As a programmer and a bit of a logic-puzzle-geek myself, I personally think this idea is great, and would love to see more of them.  Inclusion in Wikipedia, however, is based on |notability guidelines, which are not dependant on personal attitudes and interests.  They require that reliable outside sources are used for verification and to show that subjects are of interest.  If, for instance, a published newspaper offered these puzzles in the same way they offer crosswords or sudoku, or a significant puzzle/math magazine or website writes an article about it, then it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines.  This type of puzzle must be promoted to puzzle fans and the media before it can be considered for Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: fails otability. Although |I like it, I don't think that any game can be inherently notable, and notability for inclusion into this encyclopeadia is not at all a relative term (although the rules aren't always crystal clear). And, as the author said: this is a new game, there hasn't been significant coverage in relieable sources, and unless it does, it has no place here.The knight tour problem can't provide notbility for this puzzle, by the way. If the puzzle catches on and e.g. it's being used in magazines or newspapers similarily to sudokus or chess puzzles, I can see a section in Knight's tour or Chess puzzle, but it has to go notability first, encyclopaedic article later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ILIKEIT)