Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rage Cage
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
— User:Robkit, 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)