Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination)

1820:. (There are also 500+ group "hits" when searching "I lost the game", and many of them seem to be similar groups, raising the number even more.) That's easily 10,000 members, and even with a high incidence of overlap (which I haven't seen, considering the other groups aren't usually found in the "related groups" section, which seems to highlight groups with large overlap), there must be at least 4,000 considering the one group of 3,975. The groups state similar rules, if not the same rules, just using different words. To me, considering I'd guess that most people on Facebook are real people with real names, and that Facebook is a major Internet site, it looks like this is an activity participated in by many people from many places in the world, from a source that can't be discounted. It also seems unlikely that someone would join such a group without at least learning about the game. Also, while it is true that many groups link to the Knowledge (XXG) article, if the article was removed it wouldn't stop people from playing the game. Most of these groups are unlikely to change or be removed and anybody with a Facebook account can check that these groups exist. I'm not sure how best to include this in the article, but based on this, The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. 3391:, mostly for pragmatic reasons. At this point, it should be obvious that Knowledge (XXG) policy doesn't make this a slam dunk delete or a slam dunk keep. (Anyone who included "speedy" in their vote needs to put their view of WP policy in perspective, I'd say.) This AfD is nothing but the old deletionist vs. inclusionist debate rehashed for a thousandth time. If the policies and guidelines about inclusion are clearer someday and happen to swing it toward "delete", bring it up again. But right now, the choices are a sketchy delete and a sketchy keep, and sketchy deletes create many more hard feelings. 2829:. I know this game exists because I have heard my son and his friends play it for several years (and they clearly did not invent it or they would have claimed credit). From the past deletion discussions and the widespread locales where Wikipedians have stated that it has been played, in my view its lack of coverage in the press is not an indication that its existence is in question, but rather a indication of how uninteresting The Game is to those who don't "play." I think it is stupid but I also think it is widespread and is barely encyclopedic enough to keep. -- 2024:

guidelines. There are many somewhat notable subjects that aren't in Knowledge (XXG) and we will get by just fine if this stays one of them. (Encyclopedia Dramatica is another). This is one of those situations were a consensus departure from the notability/RS guidelines is the right thing. We should only relent on this deletion if the subject becomes truly iconic (e.g. it's on the covers of Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated all in the same week), at least 100x higher threshold than "notable".

2986:. I understand that memes are not individually notable and/or verifiable, but they are an observable sociological phenomenom. Perhaps a re-categorization as an example of memetics would be a good compromise? This article has been helpful to me in explaining The Game to people, and I've been playing since (roughly) 2001. I would also agree, though, that it needs some work in bringing it up to an encyclopedic standard. Cheers, Oons 2843:. The AFD listing says that "The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all." It doesn't. There's no reason there can't be a decent news report or similar about the game, it's just that we haven't found a good one in English yet. The article even has a reference, it's just that it's in Dutch, and the website's registration system is currently broken so we can't read the article. It is 624:. The information on previous AFDs given at the top of this page is incorrect. The Feb 06 deletion was of a different article about the same game. It was deleted because this article existed. All the above delete votes claim this article to be unverifiable or lacking reliable sources. It has a reliable source, the De Morgen article. This article is verifiable and has a reliable source, and hence should be kept. 174: 3211:"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Knowledge (XXG). This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." 2356:. I come not as a drone propelled by the senseless campaign to support the article (indeed, I was unaware of such a campaign until reading this AfD), but as an interested project participant. Article quality could certainly be improved, but it seems rather unfair to call this "patent nonsense." As additional evidence for verifiability and notability, I offer a Facebook group dedicated to the game 3492:, only because the whole point of this game is to forget about it. therefore by deleting this article, we wikipedians are all winning. i am sure that the continued existence of this game in increasing numbers of social circles will cause this article to be brought back again and again. the repeated deletion only serves to exemplify the purpose of the game, so delete away, winners of the game! -- 2280:. People pointing out that editors have only made a few contributions to Knowledge (XXG) (e.g. "That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia.") are wasting their time. As it says at the top "this is not a ballot". It is irrelevant how many contributions they have made. All that is important is the argument(s) they provide for whether or not the article should be kept. 715:. It isn't a board game or a computer game or anything similar; its a meme. It has been mentioned in one (1) newspaper, in a way that doesn't appear to be remotely close to the tone of a traditional newpaper article. I suspect this was a humor piece, at best. Furthermore, the presence of a website with the self-stated goal of convincing otherwise reliable sources to cover the topic 2081:"we are not here to propagate stupidity" - this is your personal opinion that the game is stupid. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Beyond which the goal of the article should not be to recruit people in to the game, but simply to present information about what it is. Your quote is also definitely not relevant. It talks about looking at other ways to prevent people who have a 537:"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Knowledge (XXG)." This article has ONE small newspaper article. 2847:, it's just not adequately verified yet. The listing then says "As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth." That's not true either. Anyone can and does add their own nonsense, as with any article: this is a wiki. Like any other article good changes are kept and unverifiable 2314:. As close to patent nonsense as I've seen outside articles speedied within minutes. The only reason I don't go for "delete and salt" is that there is at least one actual phenomenon called simply "The Game," a word game once popular in New York theatrical and social circles (whose rules I've completely forgotten). 1380:. That is one of the long-term challenges facing Knowledge (XXG). Someone with a book about children's games can probably reference many of the above, while some articles in that vein will eventually be merged elsewhere or deleted. The article under review here, however, does not appear to be verifi 3462:

It really bothers me that people try to observe guidelines only when it is convenient to do so—guidelines are not sacrosanct, but shouldn't be discarded without very good reason. One source in a foreign language which requires registration (which someone above suggested was not working at the moment)

3002:

and it really should be a delete and salt until such time as the community comes to a new consensus that it does (i.e. more sources), but the reality is that sheer weight of numbers means that it's going to be closed as no consensus ergo de facto keep. C'est la vie. The article has been maintained in

2646:

Looking at the history of the notability guideline, it seems that the wording has within the past month or two been changed from something along the lines of "multiple independent sources" to having the words published and reliable in there. Furthermore, from reading the talk page it sounds like this

2185:

for how there's already a huge amount of stuff that we don't currently document that we really should (maybe we'll get to some of it, but for now, we're not exactly suffering from the absence). This article under discussion is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. It would matter if it was an

2112:

states that foreign sources should be treated the same if there's a published translation or the original is cited, as it is here. It has been noted that the existence of this article creates controversy and bad spirits. In no way is that more damaging than the alternative, letting one party have its

2085:

from manipulating because current measure aren't working. In addition, that doesn't even look close to an adopted guideline, it's just a discussion of how to deal with that issue. An issue which is only tangentially related to the one here because clearly no one is going to profit from the game being

2071:

He is talking about corporate spam/COI but it applies to this stuff too. The article is nowhere near important enough for it to be worth our tolerating such manipulation. Brad also says "ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the

3011:

the however many months since. Either people were so ecstatic about it being kept that they've been partying ever since and were too busy looking for the one or two proper sources that could so easily settle this once and for all, or those sources simply aren't anywhere to be found, or (most likely)

2373:

The "Facebook defence" has already been commented on above. Furthermore, the outside campaigning is but one element of the argument against this article (incidentally, even if Facebook groups were admissible as evidence - the 4,007 members of this Facebook group have made only 93 discussion board

2180:

I also agree with Bwitth that the Dutch newspaper reference is lousy in terms of reliability and with Serpent's Choice that any new sourcing should be held to the highest standard. However, good documentation or not, I don't share Kizor's view that Knowledge (XXG) is harmed (in any substantial way)

2062:

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Knowledge (XXG) for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a

3026:

Mini-essay posted here, moved to talk page by someone who deemed it irrelevant. It's under "another opinion". In a nutshell, there are more fundamental issues of policy interpretation at hand here than mere citation could resolve, and until they are decided one way or the other, I fear this dispute

2238:

You know, I really don't know much about the history of wp:n.... What I do know is that the first sentence of wp:n states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and that this article does

964:

I play the game and just lost, you bastards. I'm certainly not putting this page on my watchlist ;) But its unsourceable at the moment. One newspaper article and the 'savethegame' website are a starting point/ If and when this gets reported on in more media, then an article can be written. I have a

151:

said it in starting the 5th AFD for this article 6 months ago, "Frankly, it is time this went." I agree. It has now been 6 months since this article was last nominated for deletion. During that period the article has been tagged as needing verifiable sources, none have appeared. And it is my belief

2359:

with 4,000 members spanning the US. The game exists, it's been around longer then the Knowledge (XXG) article, and this article presents a publicly visible view of the game, not hidden behind the login walls of social networking sites. While outside campaigning for VfDs is certainly to be frowned

2161:

like a serious newspaper article, and it is the only remotely appropriate source besides. WP inclusion policies typically require multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable coverage. This is not multiple. It is arguably less than reliable and quite possibly less than independent: the efforts

2736:

The second sentence of WP:RS reads "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." I think that plenty of information can be verified about the game and it's popularity simply by looking at a large number of individually

2293:

Actually, as that template itself notes, in AFDs where there is a reason to suspect outside organization might influence the discussion, it is completely appropriate to indicate which participants have little other Knowledge (XXG) presence. That is because established editors are more likely to

918:

riots in LA, an arbitrary channel flip produced the sentence, "That car is about the size of a football field." Nonetheless, while it happened, it is not here - except for my mention of an otherwise humorous event that you would have had to be there for the experience. Point being, it may have

735:

did not realize it was being used by those wishing to prop up a Knowledge (XXG) article. With the danger of incestuous amplification so high in this case, we should be demanding correspondingly stringent references ... not one unserious article in a relatively minor foreign-language newspaper.

375:

I can't find where you explained why this is a logical fallacy. Someone does not have to give consent to be a player of a game. In the example I gave in previous discussions, I can create a new game right now called Kernow's Game. Whoever next edits this page will win Kernow's Game. Now the next

1831:

The forum and Facebook group membership don't count for much - the only thing you need to join a forum is a registered account. The only thing you need to join a Facebook group is to have a existing Facebook account and to click a couple of buttons. In any case, even if such membership data was

2669:

There are delete votes that have comments like "dumb" and "mostly nonsense". There is another comment of the form "this has gone on long enough." I don't consider it an assumption that people making comment have already decided what they want and will do whatever they can to force the deletion

2023:

The COI, POV-pushing, disruption, and self-reference problems created by the off-wiki campaign to generate press for this meme for the specific purpose of getting it into Knowledge (XXG) far outweigh any apparent crossing of the subject over the boundary of Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability

2134:

but is rather a whimsical column. Furthermore, this column is the only published source that had been found. Moreover, the column asserts that this game is predominantly played in the USA and the UK - the two major English-speaking countries - and yet only this one Flemish newspaper column is

2043:

I didn't say it was silly, I don't mind silly, there's tons of silly stuff in Knowledge (XXG) that I'm ok with. "Dumb" is different and is a good reason for deletion (we are not here to propagate stupidity). This particular article and the off-wiki efforts to get it into Knowledge (XXG) are

2190:

article (and we do rate some articles for importance). If it's unimportant, we can by definition afford to lose it no matter how thoroughly documented it is. The bottom line is: notability by RS is an argument favoring inclusion, but not an automatic discussion-stopper. In this case, it's

3453:, which is policy. I think in this case we can allow the article to stay. It would certainly be nice to have more sources since the article can't expand beyond what is currently there, but I don't think it should be deleted until more are found, since the source provided seems reliable. 3145:

is a little more narrow than that, and if you could point to a published source it would be much better than making generalised statements of cultural familiarity. The fact that I've never heard of it outside of Knowledge (XXG) is just as irrelevant as the fact that you have.

359:

Just because it's of no consequence to them doesn't mean they're not playing it. The first rule, "knowledge of The Game is the only thing required to play it", really should be written "knowledge of The Game means you are playing it", but that's informal writing.

1686:. A single newspaper article of somewhat dubious reliability is not enough to satisfy the verifiability concerns here. No other sources have been found in the many months since this whole thing started; thus, this is not an appropriate topic for this encyclopedia. 1303:

I guess your scroll bar is broken. Right up the page: "I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)"

1457:

My vote wasn't based on that alone, I was just responding to the vote above mine. This article has survived for years, and should continue to survive. Its topic, along with its history, are notable for many reasons, and should be included in this encyclopedia.

2562:

been kept, it has had cleanup tags (as far as my limited inspection can tell), but it hasn't been fixed. I have no faith in this article's future. Let it be recreated when an editor can sufficiently address the problems with respect to core content policies.

2647:

is a controversial change. I don't think that judging the notability of this article on the basis of a controversial portion of a guideline is a very convincing argument, especially when a lot of the pro-delete side here seems to be acting in bad faith.

1898:

Telso you do a lot of great research and conclude, "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. " without refferencing the wikipedia POLICYS on verifiablity, reliability or notablity. Please, refference the policy not your opinion about the

2961:

This is notable, it exists, and we can't prove it. It would be nice if there were more sources to explain it, but as it is there is only the one source and so there is no way that the article can be guaranteed accurate. There are solid reasons why

2685:

If we have numerous sources, including one or two reliable ones, why is there only one source mentioned in the article? I'm afraid I haven't registered for the website which would allow me to stare at the Dutch source in bewilderment. Hence,

2690:. If this wasn't the sixth nomination, I'd be willing to assume the article would be fixed after the AfD, but that doesn't seem to work for this article—it's not like it can never be recreated if someone takes the time to write it properly. 376:

person to edit this page will win Kernow's Game whether they want to or not. I'm sure that many of the gladiators of ancient Rome did not want to participate either, but if they got killed they lost. If you think about The Game, you lose.

2737:

somewhat suspect sources, many of which have been cited above. (See for example the rules listed in .) If we can verify facts about the game, from this reading it seems that the existence of any reliable sources at all is not necessary.

156:. The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all. As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth. Such a thing should not be tolerated in any true encyclopedia. 350:(This again?) No, I'm not - that's a logical fallacy. Just because a person has heard about the Game, doesn't mean they chose to play it. You may like to think they're playing it or losing it, but that's of no consequence to them. 1189:

Facebook groups, used as a source for modern sociological research, can certainly indicate that the topic is known to a broad and diverse number of people, and that The Game is not confined to only one school or geographic region.

2438:, which is peer edited, and not at all a reliable source. It would be like someone creating a Knowledge (XXG) page and using that as a reliable source for a further Knowledge (XXG) page. Of course, this does happen (see 2256:

guideline. A great deal of community work, debate, and sometimes conflict went into the changes. Articles that were acceptable in July may not be now, just as articles that were acceptable in, say, 2004 may not be now.

1024:, regardless of how well process has been upheld, should justify ensuring that, if deleted, it can only be recreated again if there is consensus to do so. No more unilateral actions, for the best interests of all sides. 2670:

through. Also that guideline which was changed a month ago, and labeled as "consensus" despite a vocal minority being opposed to it. Beyond which the guideline even explicitly states that guidelines are not set in stone.

2170:

of concocting reliable sources, it should be absolutely guaranteed that WP will hold every single proposed reference to the highest possible standard. Knowledge (XXG) is not for this kind of bald-faced system gaming.

1384:, and, furthermore, has been through the AFD process now six times with no better documentation to show for it than one Dutch-language newspaper article that, based on its apparent tone, clearly had a generous editor. 1122:

A quick facebook search gives several "global" groups with 1000+ total (reg. req'd). I realize that a facebook group isn't a quantifier of notoriety but it serves to indicate, at least, that this is somewhat more than

48:. I could opt-out and take the easy path (close as "no consensus"), but that would be wrong. The arguments to delete are plenteous and well-argued, while the keep arguments are (save one or two) entirely unconvincing.-- 1556:- In my opinion, "The Game" has transcended generations, and I am incredibly surprised that nobody has written a scholarly article about something such as this, because it was a meme before a meme came into existence. 1764:. You can also see there are people from multiple schools; I count about 40 universities in the first 100 people of the first group, as well as many universities with many players. I quickly found more groups with 1230:

This doesn't look like a winnable battle at this point. Until there are more verifiable resources, people will keep on VfDing this article. I hope that once verifiable articles are found, they will be collected on

141: 3182:. Not liking something is not a reason for deletion. The article is notable, and verifiable, albeit currently by a single source. There is scope in this encyclopaedia for the frivolous as well as the mundane. 2156:

Agreed with Bwithh here. I don't care at all that the article is in Dutch. A quality source is a quality source whether it is in English, Dutch, or Bantu. But this is not a quality source -- it does not read

1356:, all have inadequate verifiability status. Games are inherently less verifiable than than academic subjects. Perhaps the real discussion should be about the standards for verifiability of individual games? -- 133: 2033:

Basically you are saying that because you think the topic is silly, even if it is notable, the article should not exists? I don't see how this is any better than the delete vote at top which just said "dumb".

404:

De Morgen is one of the most popular Belgian national newspapers. The existence of savethegame.org is irrelevant to whether or not this article is verifiable. And of course he's playing The Game, we all are.

1832:

interesting, the Facebook group with 1,878 members you cite has a messageboard with just 3 discussion topics and a whopping 31 posts plus a pictureboard with 279 posts with brief "hello" messages from people

125: 3521:. It requires stretching multiple policies/guidelines to justify keeping this article. At some point, we reach the elastic limit. Foreign-language sources without reliable translation are a stretch to 2209:. "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot." - Mailer Diablo (Admin who closed last AfD as No Consensus). Nothing has changed since the last AfD... 1095: 1005: 740: 861: 1388: 1259: 2302: 2264: 2175: 3256: 1028: 3331:

As I have commented below, WP:N is a guideline, not policy. A little "common sense" tells us that this article is an example of "the occasional exception" to WP:N guidelines on multiple sources.

3191:

Sorry but the people all my shool (even though they're morons) have better things to do than play this game that no one I've asked has heard of(and i've asked quiet a few people). --Malevious

2525:, which cannot be acheived without the aforementioned policies. This isn't the place to argue notability or verifiability, this is the place to decide whether the article does that on its own. 2104:. The subject is known to be real and notable. There is no doubt of its existence and nature. To destroy the article is to harm Knowledge (XXG) as a reference work. It has been noted that the 3550:

I have no doubt that the game is real and that some people have heard of it. I also have no doubt that I'm real and some people have heard of me, but I don't get an article. We all know why.

980:. We have established that it is something that exists to a certain extent which has a reasonable chance of becoming verfiable. Any unsourced entries that fail to pass A7 can be speedied. -- 3463:

should hardly be the exception to the guideline's two reliable sources. Ideally someone who wants to keep this article can just find a published, accessable source, and make this all moot.

314:

time for better sources to show up and there has even been an online campaign with an its own special website tasked since March 2006 to find such references for the article or - indeed,

137: 3128:- Although this has not yet reached the main-stream media, this is probably a pop culture phenomenon. Go to any school in America and say "I just lost the game" and view the results. - 1843:

Most groups on facebook of comparable size have only a few posts to their message board. Are you seriously suggesting that this group on facebook is popular because of sockpuppeting?

2072:

temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur" -- difficult in a case like this, so we should ban (salt) the article instead.

260: 3359:. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the 989:

Given this article's history, if it is deleted, I strongly suggest salting. Any effort to build a verified, properly-cited version can be assembled in userspace and taken through

3504:. I guess I base it on the fact that if this were a band and all the bands fans were clamouring keep, and had some foreign language reference I couldn't access I'd say the same. 3318:

and whether a topic with only one published source can still be notable. Someone should find out the reason it was changed to require multiple sources in the first place.

2598:

The game is certainly notable based on it's large internet popularity. Many delete nominations seem to be in bad faith: It's silly so there shouldn't be an article on it.

2108:

article is in a foreign language. If that's an argument, you're free to nominate the tens of thousands of articles on non-English things that rely on non-English sources.

310:

reliable - not a news article with proper vetting process, but a whimisical column; also the author appears to be playing "the game" himself. This article has been given

117: 2618:

People have mentioned numerous web sources. My point was that the threshold for what is a reliable source and what is a source for proving notability are not that same.

1532:

standards and it has only found one non-english reference. As for salting this article it has been previously deleted the recreated and deleted also been to DRV with

1313:

Thank you for your concern about my scroll bar. Now, please show me, in that quote, where I say it is not notable! I say, "I care if it meets WP:N, and it does not."

1294:, which says, ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." 2804:

per Bwithh. Also the first rule of common sense applies: If something is contemporary, domestic and supposedly popular, it shouldn't be a problem to find sources. ~

2656:

Thank you for clarifying that when you don't like current wiki guidelines, you just, well ignore them. Also thank you for clarifying that you aren't very skilled at

1272: 1108: 1015: 761: 385:

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer and also note the lack of violent force exerted to control others involved in the current version of the Game

2816:, no prejudice against re-creation. The concerns raised about the article seem legitimate, and the absence of other sources over time is increasingly telling. -- 548:

The Game must been known to 100,000 people from the De Morgen article alone, and it existed for at least 3 years before this was printed so is definately notable.

727:

suggests that knowledge of the game is scant in the article's likely audience (but high in places with heavy Knowledge (XXG) participation), I do not think it is

2139:

do more harm than good to Knowledge (XXG) as it suggests that other articles can get away with such minimal and dubious referencing too, making a mockery out of

369:

Well, yeah if you rewrite the accepted standards of logic and the meanings of words in your own head, you can pretty much mould the world into whatever you like

121: 3529:, so we need to stretch that guideline. Keeping an article on a topic that derives much of its notability from its presence in Knowledge (XXG) is a stretch to 2248:

Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to notability has evolved substantially since July. As of July 6, when the previous AFD closed, the essay on notability looked like

2374:

posts and 612 "hello" wall picture posts, meaning that at best, 17.6% of the group's members have made the most minimal contribution (one post) to the group)

322:

The Lose The Game campaign is an attempt to influence major media outlets into covering The Game, thus providing "reliable sources" to cite on Knowledge (XXG)

2884: 2390:: I was looking for other sources, and the other Wikipedias seem to have the same problem. The only different sources that are listed there are a page at 129: 2714:

There areplenty of website about the game that could be cited. I was not of the impression that "hasn't been cleaned up yet," is a reason for deletion.

206: 2130:

that its in a foreign language. The argument is that the article does not appear to be a news report subject to the factual vetting process assumed by

1908:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I conclude that "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me"(???). Anyway, I referenced the policy

3003:

an almost unchanged condition since the closure of the last AFD (save for the usual stripping out of vandalism, and debates about whether to include

2723:

It is true that you assert that there are many websites about the game. However is it true any of them could be cited? Do any of these websites pass

1874:. And everyone seems to say that so many people play the game and have heard of it, yet know one i know has every heard of this game. --Malevious 1020:

Actually, I meant the first deletion, the one upheld as "keep deleted" via DRV. Frankly, the fact that we've had to go through this much nonsense

914:

This is true, but I would also like to point out that there are no sources other than my own first hand experience that indicates that, during the

857:

is for. It is for times that process interferes with the encyclopedia, not to evade the encyclopedia's core policies and inclusion requirements.

3012:

having had the article declared kept thanks to one pansy-arse source, they decided that their work here was done and crawled back to their rocks.

2869: 1592:

the article (with much more than a passing mention of "The Game") needs to be published in a reputable journal or book from a reputable publisher

187:

If you came here because somebody asked you to, you read a message on a forum, or you are involved with www.savethegame.org, please note that

3007:'s website in the list of links), which means that no interesting worthwhile sources have been found during the previous umpteen nominations 2327:

This could be handled by giving the word game article a different name at first, then requesting a page move to recover the protected name.

3354: 2398:. The BBC article is a user-created article for the "Hitchhiker's Guide Encyclopedia". I'm having issues figuring out if the article is 948:

If this is the case (I'm not saying it is or isn't), my appologies. The game has had issues with soliciting people to come here and vote.

1496:

Longevity in wikipedia is anot a criteria for inclusion. "Notable for many reasons" is not a valid criteria per the wikipedia guideline

83: 78: 2549:

The correct response for NPOV is not to delete the article. It is to put an NPOV tag on it and work to make the point of view neutral.

903: 219: 1393:

I just upgraded the references of all the articles mentioned above by Bkkbrad. The only one which still has problems in my opinion is

87: 2522: 17: 3554: 3542: 3513: 3496: 3482: 3457: 3435: 3411: 3383: 3379:

Regardless of the number of available published sources, this is a real game with widespread popularity, and is obviously notable.

3371: 3335: 3322: 3298: 3282: 3239: 3222: 3201: 3186: 3165: 3132: 3113: 3099: 3075: 3031: 3016: 2990: 2953: 2923: 2895: 2874: 2835: 2820: 2808: 2796: 2780: 2767: 2741: 2731: 2718: 2709: 2674: 2664: 2651: 2641: 2622: 2613: 2602: 2582: 2553: 2544: 2495: 2458: 2429: 2378: 2364: 2346: 2331: 2318: 2284: 2243: 2233: 2224: 2213: 2195: 2151: 2117: 2090: 2076: 2038: 2028: 2015: 1996: 1951: 1932: 1903: 1884: 1847: 1838: 1824: 1733: 1713: 1697: 1674: 1665: 1644: 1629: 1620: 1596: 1584: 1568: 1548: 1504: 1485: 1462: 1452: 1443: 1427: 1405: 1371: 1360: 1317: 1308: 1298: 1285: 1239: 1221: 1194: 1180: 1151: 1142: 1131: 1079: 1061: 1048: 984: 969: 952: 943: 934: 923: 886: 872: 848: 835: 816: 804: 792: 703: 688: 676: 648: 639: 628: 614: 593: 581: 565: 552: 541: 519: 498: 489: 480: 469: 457: 443: 434: 418: 409: 389: 380: 364: 354: 345: 334: 285: 163: 52: 899: 70: 1709:. Is there proof of the newspaper's suddenly dubious reliability other than the fact that you're against keeping the article? -- 3198: 1881: 282: 2596:

There is no requirement than notability be established by reliable sources, only that the facts in the article are verifiable.

3094: 3070: 2630:

states several times the need for "published" and "reliable" sources. Only reliable sources can be used to judge notability.

1398: 1345: 2880: 2855:

and removed. Clearly we need to improve the references for this article, but it's just as clear we shouldn't delete it. --

1947:

The notability does not need to be established by reliable sources. Only the facts of the article require reliable sources.

3274: 2487: 2421: 1988: 1560: 3360: 3142: 2514: 2977: 3569: 1044:

I've heard of this numerous times. It's popular among grade school kids, that's why you don't have too many sources.

200: 195:

to establish a consensus amongst Knowledge (XXG) editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have

36: 2865: 2298:

than are newcomers and outsiders, who, in this case, could conceivably include individuals rallied from savethegame.

113: 3314:

published sources which this article does not have. Editors that want this article kept should really be discussing

3252: 3232: 2998:

Yeah, everyone involved in this discussion (even the most ardent defenders, if they're honest) knows that it fails

2888: 1817: 1349: 252:

Given that there is an external site canvassing for this article and that we've had a few SPAs already (plus a few

2510: 2402:, since it does appear to be peer edited. I was unable to determine much about the relability of the other site. 1722:

I said nothing about the newspaper; I was referring only to the article itself, as many others here already have.

2162:

that the game's advocates have been using off-WP serve only to raise the necessary bar; when an advocacy website

2518: 341:

How could the author not be playing The Game? Obviously he's heard about it. You're playing the game as well. --

3568:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2229:

I may be wrong but has WP:N changed since the last AfD? I don't remember it requiring multiple sources before.

1281:

says "Notability of internet memes is widely disputed." Just because you say it's not notable is your opinion.

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3538: 2949: 2637: 1761: 1729: 1693: 1521: 327: 3118: 2937: 1867: 1529: 1084: 558: 534: 3295: 2856: 2299: 2261: 2172: 1969: 1385: 1256: 1092: 1025: 1002: 895: 869: 858: 737: 431: 257: 3449:. But WP:RS is a guideline, not policy, so occasional exceptions are allowed. One is enough to satisfy 3364: 2328: 2192: 2073: 2025: 1747:. losethegame.com has a forum which claims 2356 users as of when I posted this. There are also links to 3509: 3218: 2987: 1580: 1481: 788: 3268: 3110: 2738: 2715: 2671: 2481: 2415: 2404:(If this is not an appropriate place to discus this I will gladly move it the the article's talk page.) 2087: 1982: 1054: 1045: 625: 549: 495: 477: 406: 2852: 2805: 1760:, totalling 3,956 members, one of which having 1,878 members and one having over 1000 members at the 940: 891: 883: 801: 361: 74: 1101: 3533:. I just don't stretch that far. If we aren't going to salt, we may as well not bother deleting. 3478: 3431: 3195: 3161: 3138: 3082: 3058: 3041: 2919: 2705: 2578: 2540: 2220:

You are right, nothing has changed, it still doesn't pass WP:N, which insists on MULTIPLE sources.

2135:

available as published source. And keeping such an article with such tenuous and sligh referencing

1878: 1565: 1557: 1128: 279: 3261: 2474: 2408: 1975: 1057:

has only 3 editsas at 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) and only one prior to commenting on this AFD.

828: 196: 3551: 3534: 3493: 3088: 3064: 2945: 2901: 2633: 1725: 1689: 700: 644:

Please note, User 61.7.151.188 has a whopping 2 edits to his name, both of them.... on this AFD.

2065: 2045: 1290:

Please show me where I said it is not notable? I said a large # of google hits does not satisfy

3525:. So is an article that depends on subscription-only sources. A single source cannot satisfy 561:. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. 2315: 1337: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3037: 2182: 1541: 1206: 1157: 919:

happened, but we need proof - and lack of article here is not proof that it didn't happen. --

3505: 3403: 3214: 2974: 2833: 1576: 1477: 1172: 784: 757: 3530: 2848: 2657: 2360:

upon, the article should be reviewed on its own merits, not the actions of its supporters.

2258: 1871: 1537: 1473: 1436: 1420: 1278: 1248: 1124: 1072: 1011:

To be anal so was its deletion, with rather more justification for being out of process. --

990: 854: 841: 824: 780: 728: 712: 272: 3013: 2452: 2361: 1659: 1394: 1353: 1341: 1214: 1191: 1105: 1076: 920: 844:

obviously dictates that in extreme cases you shouldn't be anal about the lack of sources.

832: 670: 608: 513: 454: 160: 66: 58: 3446: 2724: 2399: 2140: 2131: 1925: 1913: 1860: 1609: 1401:

was interesting - French origins with references going back to at least the 19th century

772: 303: 3464: 3417: 3192: 3147: 3129: 2905: 2691: 2564: 2526: 1968:, but I haven't found any. To be fair, I have heard of the game at my school, but, as 1875: 1545: 1365:

One thing at a time! Sound like a great discussion, but NOT here. Please disucss that:

1058: 981: 966: 685: 660:, lacks multiple reliable sources so fails WP:V, and has done so since it was created. 276: 3526: 3522: 3450: 3348: 3315: 3307: 3206: 3141:

does not allow for crediting a citation to "any school in America." The definition of

2999: 2963: 2844: 2627: 2471:

That's kind of what I had assumed, but I figured a second opnion would help. Thanks.

2253: 2144: 2109: 1921: 1909: 1864: 1525: 1497: 1291: 1265: 1088: 776: 720: 299: 173: 153: 3454: 3236: 3183: 2439: 2048:

and deletion and salting is the correct remedy. Per Foundation counsel Brad Patrick:

1863:. No matter how many people know about it, it still doesn't pass wikipedias policys ( 1617: 1459: 1440: 1305: 1282: 845: 813: 253: 2395: 2357: 3380: 3028: 2892: 2817: 2391: 1972:

noted, knowledge of the game is not enough for its inclusion in the encyclopedia.

1671: 1641: 1357: 1236: 1218: 731:

to believe the website's goal was successful, and that this article exists because

486: 466: 1536:

then it was recreated anyway, if its deleted any recreation should only occur via

104: 3235:, while absolutely not a policy, has a great deal of sense for cases like this. 3392: 3368: 3332: 3319: 3004: 2971: 2967: 2830: 2793: 2777: 2764: 2728: 2661: 2610: 2375: 2281: 2240: 2230: 2221: 2210: 2148: 1929: 1900: 1835: 1833: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1757: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1593: 1501: 1449: 1424: 1402: 1368: 1314: 1295: 1269: 1161: 1148: 1139: 949: 931: 915: 753: 645: 636: 590: 578: 562: 538: 439:

That you think a topic is silly is definitely not a justification for deletion.

415: 386: 377: 370: 351: 342: 331: 3294:

Please stop talking about it, wouldn't you like to win for a little while?? --

2933: 2648: 2619: 2599: 2550: 2443: 2343: 2114: 2035: 2012: 1948: 1844: 1821: 1710: 1650: 1626: 1544:

where notiablilty, and verifiable source can be discussed and reviewed first.

1252: 1210: 1012: 661: 599: 504: 440: 148: 1920:

discussion revolving around these source issues. I can keep repeating "Fails

1575:

And until someone does, it is unsuitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). --

1209:

will get you almost 10,000 results. If we can have 57 unsourced variants of

3445:. It has one reliable source right now, and needs at least one more to pass 2940:, notifying only "keep" voters from the last AfD of the current discussion. 49: 319: 112:

This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions (

1255:

is a train wreck at the moment. It shouldn't be something to aspire to.

2294:

understand concepts like verifiability, notability, and reliable sources

1613: 1333: 306:. The single foreign language article used in support of this article is 2342:

The fact that you think the topic is goofy is not ground for deletion.

2879:

Aside: I had no idea how popular The Game was on Knowledge (XXG); see

2521:

are there for a reason, as far as I can tell. One of those pillars is

3213:

An article with only one source is neither notable nor verifiable. --

1075:. That includes grade school gags, games, jokes, fun-making, etc. -- 930:

That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia.

3363:. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects 2900:

For some perspective, that amounts to about 50 or 100 users out of

453:, with a special nod to Bwithh above and his commentary on this. -- 1500:. Having multiple sources however, IS. And this subject does not. 2252:. That differs in a number of substantial ways from the current 3562:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3027:

will be primarily swayed by merits of numbers and loudness. --

2594:- The article has a reliable source. The article is verifiable. 2435: 1448:

Not failing one guideline as a reason to keep? Interesting vote!

557:

I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets

328:

list of reliable sources so far found or planted by the campaign

203:

are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

3416:

If there is any keep vote which could convince me, this is it.

3080:

It's interesting though, so I copy-pasted it to my userspace. o

1964:. I've been looking around the internet for sources to verify 1625:

Can you explain why you feel the article is original research?

3310:

has changed significantly since the last AfD. It now requires

748:. For the purposes of accuracy, it should be noted that the 1520:

this has been an ongoing debate since 2004, since march 06

997:

twice, and its recreation was arguably out of process the

2259:

Consensus (and the guidelines) can -- and does -- change.

1232: 3121:. I am abstaining, so I can't possibly have any effect.) 2941: 2249: 2021:

Delete, salt the earth, fuse the salt with nuclear fire

2011:

per all delete votes above. Reliable Sources problems.

1423:, and i suppose a whole bunch of other polices as well 100: 96: 92: 1649:

No reason given as to why we should keep the article.

1524:

has been soliciting sources for the article that meet

1476:

it would be fully referenced and sourced. It isn't. --

882:

the lack of sources doesn't mean it's not a real event

752:

article appeared before SaveTheGame.org was created. —

723:

here is disturbing. Keeping in mind that the article

635:

The reliability of the De Morgen article is disputed

2166:

that it is attempting to arrange for media coverage

271:

unverifiable and mostly nonsense also seems to fail

965:

strong feeling that will happen. But for now, no --

812:this article quantifies a point of human existence 589:

the game exists, is notable, and will never die. --

205:You can participate and give your opinion. Please 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1859:facebook and losethegame.com do not qualify under 316:to deliberately plant such references in the media 2792:i'll put a graph for the votes on the talk page. 1376:(ec) A great many articles require further verifi 3572:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1916:in my very first comment in what after all is a 330:. This has gone on too long. Let's finish this. 152:that none ever will. This article is simply not 2763:I'd like to keep it, but it'll take a cleanup. 3109:, has anything related to this been BJAODN'd? 3056:when somebody finds good sources. 'Til then. o 2609:WP:N requires MULTIPLE SOURCES. End of story. 2126:The argument against the De Morgen article is 533:, but only if we are into Wiki polices, like 256:), I think its time for this banner, sadly. 8: 2885:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_the_game 318:- see this mission statement on the website: 939:(yes i can't find my old login, oh shucks) 696:, A social engineering fad. Not notable. ~ 414:No we're not. That's a fallacy. see above. 1138:Facebook groups are not a reliable source 993:. Keep in mind this was already deleted 598:Prove it with multiple reliable sources. 503:Since when is 'more than one' arbitrary? 209:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 2887:(which was a template that got moved to 1073:not for things made up in school one day 3174:arbitrary break for ease of editing (2) 2003:arbitrary break for ease of editing (1) 1928:" in every comment I like if you want. 2881:Category:Wikipedians who play The Game 1235:until the article can be recreated. -- 1147:As of Dec 25th, Westerly has 4 edits. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2996:Really couldn't give a crap any more 2086:kept on, or removed from wikipedia. 1670:Sentence above has eleven words. -- 1217:, which has a newspaper article? -- 1125:something made up in school one day 2760:Really Really Weak Delete Per Nate 2434:The BBC article you mention is on 1639:. Shit, I just lost the game : --> 1268:. Most of the hits are off blogs. 24: 2113:way because it shouted louder. -- 711:. Almost by definition, this is 2191:outweighed by the other issues. 1104:instead, covers it I believe. -- 494:Yay for arbitrary requirements! 172: 1264:Googling hits does not satisfy 827:, and please don't try to be a 2507:Delete unless properly sourced 1399:He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not 1346:He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not 138:DRV - restored as no consensus 1: 3555:19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3543:18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3514:16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3497:11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3483:17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3458:07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3436:17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3412:07:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3384:07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3372:06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3336:12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3323:06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3299:01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3283:04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3253:Knowledge (XXG):Don't Destroy 3240:01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3233:Knowledge (XXG):Don't Destroy 3223:03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3202:01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3187:00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3166:19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3133:19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3114:10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3100:08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3076:08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3032:07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 3017:01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 2991:18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2954:06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2924:15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2896:06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2875:06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2836:05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2821:04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2809:03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2797:02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2781:02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2768:02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2742:17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2732:14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2719:06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2710:05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2675:06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2665:03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2652:03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2642:02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2623:02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2614:02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2603:01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2583:02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2554:02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2545:01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2496:00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2459:23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2430:23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2379:21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2365:20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2347:02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2332:21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2319:16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2303:14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2285:14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2265:14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2244:14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2234:14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2225:14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2214:14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2196:10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2181:by losing this article. See 2176:06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2152:06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2118:06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2091:17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2077:10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2039:02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2029:05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 2016:05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1997:04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1952:02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1933:21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1904:21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1885:04:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1848:02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1839:04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1825:03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1734:07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 1714:06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1698:00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1675:11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 1666:16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1645:00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1630:02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1621:22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1597:18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1585:16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1569:15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1549:03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1505:14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1486:07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1463:06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1453:03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1444:03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1428:02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1406:05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1389:02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1372:02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1361:02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1318:02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1309:02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1299:02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1286:02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1273:02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1260:01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1240:02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1222:01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1195:20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1181:04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1152:14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1143:00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1132:23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 1109:23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 1096:23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 1080:23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 1062:06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1049:22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 1029:06:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1016:06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1006:00:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 985:22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 970:22:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 953:14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 944:22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 935:21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 924:00:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 887:21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 873:22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 862:23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 849:22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 836:23:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 817:20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 805:20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 793:17:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 762:23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 741:12:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 704:10:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 689:10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 677:10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 649:14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 640:09:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 629:09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 615:10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 594:07:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 582:04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 566:14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 553:09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 542:04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 520:16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 499:23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 490:09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 481:09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 470:04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 465:Not enough reliable sources. 458:03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 444:02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 435:02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 419:09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 410:09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 390:01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 381:14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 365:04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 355:09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 346:08:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 335:02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 286:01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 261:14:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 164:01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 53:01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 1870:) as well as it falls under 719:of earning recognition as a 199:to help us decide this, and 218:Comments made by suspected 134:AFD April 06 - no consensus 3589: 3353:This page is considered a 2889:User:Scepia/The Game loser 2046:WP:POINT#Gaming the system 1435:- Doesn't in any way fail 1350:Pin the Tail on the Donkey 142:AFD July 06 - no consensus 2970:18:09, 28 December 2006 ( 2936:appears to be attempting 2776:Whoops, I already voted. 1960:I'm going to have to say 840:I would like to add that 729:a violation of good faith 713:something made up one day 3565:Please do not modify it. 1277:It should be noted that 32:Please do not modify it. 1762:University of Cambridge 783:, and probably more. -- 220:single purpose accounts 197:policies and guidelines 1912:and related guideline 1816:more groups, starting 1812:members, and at least 1160:is still a guideline. 3251:: As of 30 December, 2523:neutral point of view 2296:as they are used here 1970:User:Serpent's Choice 1071:- Knowledge (XXG) is 1008:-- clarifying myself 904:few or no other edits 868:What does that mean? 222:can be tagged using 140:), and most recently 3361:occasional exception 1213:, why can't we have 1207:I just lost the game 906:outside this topic. 476:How many is enough? 189:this is not a ballot 3139:Harvard referencing 3036:Cook, and pass the 2688:delete unless fixed 3357:on Knowledge (XXG) 3044:. That is to say, 2814:Sodium-free delete 2083:financial interest 1897: 1472:If it didn't fail 1224: 1100:Might want to try 976:Oh, and definatly 798:Delete and protect 684:, non-notable. -- 201:deletion decisions 132:, then recreated, 130:DRV - keep deleted 124:, then recreated, 3512: 3280: 3255:is undergoing an 2873: 2860: 2493: 2457: 2427: 2405: 2159:even a little bit 2063:stop to this now. 1994: 1895: 1664: 1338:Egyptian Ratscrew 1201: 907: 870:Danny Lilithborne 675: 613: 518: 432:Danny Lilithborne 246: 245: 126:March 06 - delete 3580: 3567: 3508: 3474: 3471: 3468: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3409: 3406: 3399: 3396: 3281: 3277: 3271: 3266: 3264: 3157: 3154: 3151: 3143:reliable sources 2915: 2912: 2909: 2863: 2858: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2515:reliable sources 2494: 2490: 2484: 2479: 2477: 2455: 2451: 2446: 2428: 2424: 2418: 2413: 2411: 2403: 2396:insertcredit.com 2300:Serpent's Choice 2262:Serpent's Choice 2173:Serpent's Choice 1995: 1991: 1985: 1980: 1978: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1610:reliable sources 1563: 1386:Serpent's Choice 1257:Serpent's Choice 1178: 1175: 1168: 1165: 1156:As of Dec 27th, 1093:Serpent's Choice 1026:Serpent's Choice 1003:Serpent's Choice 889: 859:Serpent's Choice 853:That's not what 738:Serpent's Choice 721:verifiable topic 673: 669: 664: 611: 607: 602: 516: 512: 507: 258:Serpent's Choice 176: 169: 168: 108: 90: 34: 3588: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3570:deletion review 3563: 3519:Delete and salt 3481: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3434: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3407: 3404: 3397: 3394: 3296:207.155.200.222 3275: 3269: 3262: 3259: 3221: 3209:clearly states 3176: 3164: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3137:Unfortunately, 3098: 3074: 2922: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2806:trialsanderrors 2708: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2581: 2572: 2569: 2566: 2543: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2488: 2482: 2475: 2472: 2453: 2444: 2422: 2416: 2409: 2406: 2239:not cover that. 2168:for the purpose 2005: 1989: 1983: 1976: 1973: 1660: 1651: 1583: 1561: 1484: 1395:Bloody Knuckles 1354:Thumb wrestling 1342:Bloody Knuckles 1233:SaveTheGame.org 1215:The Game (game) 1176: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1087:does not trump 802:AgentPeppermint 791: 717:for the purpose 671: 662: 609: 600: 514: 505: 254:Lazarus editors 247: 207:sign your posts 191:, but rather a 185: 122:Feb 06 - delete 81: 67:The Game (game) 65: 62: 59:The Game (game) 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3586: 3584: 3575: 3574: 3558: 3557: 3545: 3516: 3499: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3477: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3430: 3386: 3374: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3326: 3325: 3301: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3243: 3242: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3217: 3204: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3160: 3123: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3092: 3068: 3034: 3020: 3019: 2993: 2981: 2956: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2918: 2902:3 million-plus 2877: 2838: 2823: 2811: 2799: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2771: 2770: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2704: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2606: 2605: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2577: 2539: 2517:policies. The 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2368: 2367: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2329:67.117.130.181 2322: 2321: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2288: 2287: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2217: 2216: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2193:67.117.130.181 2178: 2121: 2120: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2074:67.117.130.181 2069: 2068: 2067: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2026:67.117.130.181 2018: 2004: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1717: 1716: 1701: 1700: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1579: 1572: 1571: 1551: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1480: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1430: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1391: 1374: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1243: 1242: 1225: 1198: 1197: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1135: 1134: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1065: 1064: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 973: 972: 958: 957: 956: 955: 937: 928: 927: 926: 909: 908: 876: 875: 866: 865: 864: 838: 820: 819: 807: 795: 787: 766: 765: 764: 706: 701:punch the keys 691: 679: 654: 653: 652: 651: 632: 631: 619: 618: 617: 584: 571: 570: 569: 568: 545: 544: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 501: 473: 472: 460: 448: 447: 446: 424: 423: 422: 421: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 338: 337: 266: 265: 264: 263: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 213: 211:Happy editing! 181: 179: 177: 167: 114:Sept 04 - keep 110: 109: 61: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3585: 3573: 3571: 3566: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3553: 3552:Mikeliveshere 3549: 3546: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535:Robert A.West 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3517: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3495: 3494:Someones life 3491: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3475: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3401: 3400: 3390: 3387: 3385: 3382: 3378: 3375: 3373: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3356: 3350: 3346: 3343: 3342: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3300: 3297: 3293: 3290: 3289: 3284: 3278: 3272: 3265: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3238: 3237:Fiddle Faddle 3234: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3203: 3200: 3199:Contributions 3197: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3185: 3184:Fiddle Faddle 3181: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3122: 3120: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3105: 3101: 3096: 3091: 3090: 3085: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3033: 3030: 3025: 3022: 3021: 3018: 3015: 3010: 3006: 3001: 2997: 2994: 2992: 2989: 2988:216.91.240.14 2985: 2982: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2960: 2957: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2948: 2947: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2932: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2876: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2756: 2743: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2689: 2684: 2676: 2673: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2629: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511:verifiability 2508: 2505: 2504: 2497: 2491: 2485: 2478: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2456: 2450: 2447: 2441: 2440:Walled garden 2437: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2425: 2419: 2412: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2385: 2380: 2377: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2312:Strong Delete 2310: 2309: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2092: 2089: 2084: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2070: 2066: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1992: 1986: 1979: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1886: 1883: 1882:Contributions 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868:WP:NOTABILITY 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1735: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1691: 1685: 1682: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1657: 1654: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1604: 1603: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530:WP:NOTABILITY 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1205:Googling for 1204: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1182: 1179: 1170: 1169: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1118: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085:WP:IHEARDOFIT 1083: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1001:first time. 1000: 996: 992: 988: 987: 986: 983: 979: 978:don't protect 975: 974: 971: 968: 963: 960: 959: 954: 951: 947: 946: 945: 942: 938: 936: 933: 929: 925: 922: 917: 913: 912: 911: 910: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 885: 881: 878: 877: 874: 871: 867: 863: 860: 856: 852: 851: 850: 847: 843: 839: 837: 834: 830: 826: 822: 821: 818: 815: 811: 808: 806: 803: 799: 796: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 769:Strong delete 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 744: 743: 742: 739: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 707: 705: 702: 699: 695: 692: 690: 687: 683: 680: 678: 674: 668: 665: 659: 658:Strong delete 656: 655: 650: 647: 643: 642: 641: 638: 634: 633: 630: 627: 623: 620: 616: 612: 606: 603: 597: 596: 595: 592: 588: 585: 583: 580: 576: 573: 572: 567: 564: 560: 559:WP:NOTABILITY 556: 555: 554: 551: 547: 546: 543: 540: 536: 535:WP:NOTABILITY 532: 531:Strong Delete 529: 528: 521: 517: 511: 508: 502: 500: 497: 493: 492: 491: 488: 484: 483: 482: 479: 475: 474: 471: 468: 464: 461: 459: 456: 452: 449: 445: 442: 438: 437: 436: 433: 429: 426: 425: 420: 417: 413: 412: 411: 408: 403: 391: 388: 384: 383: 382: 379: 374: 373: 372: 368: 367: 366: 363: 358: 357: 356: 353: 349: 348: 347: 344: 340: 339: 336: 333: 329: 325: 323: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 292:Strong Delete 290: 289: 288: 287: 284: 283:Contributions 281: 278: 275:--Malevious 274: 270: 269:Speedy delete 262: 259: 255: 251: 250: 249: 248: 238: 237:UTC timestamp 234: 230: 226: 225: 224: 223: 221: 217: 212: 208: 204: 202: 198: 194: 190: 184: 180: 178: 175: 171: 170: 166: 165: 162: 159: 155: 150: 145: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 118:Dec 05 - keep 115: 106: 102: 98: 94: 89: 85: 80: 76: 72: 68: 64: 63: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3564: 3561: 3547: 3518: 3501: 3489: 3465: 3442: 3418: 3393: 3388: 3376: 3352: 3344: 3311: 3303: 3291: 3248: 3229: 3210: 3179: 3148: 3125: 3117:(I am not a 3116: 3111:58.178.78.40 3106: 3087: 3081: 3063: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3023: 3008: 2995: 2983: 2966:is policy.-- 2958: 2944: 2943: 2938:votestacking 2930: 2906: 2853:argued about 2851:nonsense is 2840: 2826: 2813: 2801: 2789: 2759: 2758: 2739:71.225.71.44 2716:71.225.71.44 2692: 2687: 2672:71.225.71.44 2632: 2631: 2595: 2591: 2565: 2559: 2527: 2519:five pillars 2506: 2448: 2387: 2353: 2316:Robertissimo 2311: 2295: 2277: 2206: 2187: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2136: 2127: 2105: 2101: 2088:71.225.71.44 2082: 2061: 2020: 2008: 1965: 1961: 1917: 1856: 1813: 1744: 1724: 1723: 1706: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1655: 1636: 1605: 1589: 1553: 1534:keep deleted 1533: 1517: 1513: 1469: 1432: 1416: 1381: 1377: 1227: 1202: 1162: 1119: 1068: 1055:71.63.10.204 1046:71.63.10.204 1041: 1021: 998: 994: 977: 961: 879: 809: 797: 768: 749: 745: 732: 724: 716: 708: 697: 693: 681: 666: 657: 626:61.7.151.188 621: 604: 586: 574: 550:61.7.151.188 530: 509: 496:71.63.10.204 485:"Multiple." 478:61.7.151.188 462: 450: 427: 407:61.7.151.188 321: 315: 311: 307: 295: 291: 268: 267: 236: 232: 228: 215: 214: 210: 192: 188: 186: 182: 157: 146: 111: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3506:Steve block 3377:Strong Keep 3215:Richmeister 3196:•Talk Page• 3180:Strong Keep 3126:Strong Keep 3005:User:Kernow 2984:Strong Keep 2825:Borderline 1879:•Talk Page• 1577:Richmeister 1554:Strong Keep 1522:this notice 1478:Richmeister 1332:Fine, then 1228:Weak Delete 1042:Strong Keep 916:Rodney King 902:) has made 785:Richmeister 575:Weak Delete 280:•Talk Page• 3119:Meatpuppet 3014:Kinitawowi 2934:User:Rdore 2845:verifiable 2362:Zachlipton 1640:_< --- 1558:Andy Saund 1253:Tag (game) 1211:Tag (game) 1192:Zachlipton 1106:Dennisthe2 1102:WP:ILIKEIT 1077:Dennisthe2 1053:note that 941:FuzzyStern 921:Dennisthe2 892:FuzzyStern 884:FuzzyStern 833:Dennisthe2 455:Dennisthe2 362:Hraesvilgr 296:bête noire 193:discussion 183:ATTENTION! 161:KnightLago 154:verifiable 3365:consensus 3355:guideline 3130:AtionSong 2392:bbc.co.uk 2188:important 2106:De Morgen 1918:joined-up 1752:different 1608:, OR, no 1546:Gnangarra 1059:Gnangarra 982:Robdurbar 967:Robdurbar 823:See also 750:De Morgen 733:De Morgan 686:Roisterer 3455:VegaDark 3312:multiple 3276:contribs 3263:W. Flake 3193:Userpage 3095:Contribs 3071:Contribs 3054:recreate 2946:Warpstar 2870:contribs 2634:Warpstar 2489:contribs 2476:W. Flake 2423:contribs 2410:W. Flake 2400:reliable 1990:contribs 1977:W. Flake 1966:the game 1899:subject. 1876:Userpage 1755:Facebook 1726:Warpstar 1690:Warpstar 1614:User:Zoe 1419:- Fails 1334:Clabbers 1306:Nardman1 1283:Nardman1 1129:Westerly 900:contribs 846:Nardman1 814:Nardman1 698:IICATSII 326:and the 298:. Fails 277:Userpage 233:username 227:{{subst: 3548:Delete. 3381:Alereon 3347:. From 3345:Comment 3304:Comment 3249:Comment 3230:Comment 3107:Comment 3029:AceMyth 3024:Comment 2893:Bkkbrad 2859:Charles 2818:Visviva 2790:Comment 2388:Comment 2278:Comment 2183:WP:BIAS 1857:Comment 1707:Comment 1672:AceMyth 1642:RockMFR 1542:WP:AN/I 1470:Comment 1358:Bkkbrad 1237:Bkkbrad 1219:Bkkbrad 1158:WP:BITE 1069:Comment 746:Comment 487:Shimeru 467:Shimeru 294:Ah, my 84:protect 79:history 3531:WP:COI 3502:Delete 3490:Delete 3369:Kernow 3333:Kernow 3320:Kernow 3046:delete 3042:pepper 2968:ais523 2959:Delete 2861:Parker 2831:DS1953 2802:Delete 2794:Just H 2778:Just H 2765:Just H 2729:Sethie 2662:Sethie 2658:WP:AGF 2611:Sethie 2376:Bwithh 2282:Kernow 2241:Sethie 2231:Kernow 2222:Sethie 2211:Kernow 2164:states 2149:Bwithh 2009:Delete 1962:delete 1930:Bwithh 1901:Sethie 1896:Bwitth 1872:WP:NFT 1836:Bwithh 1758:groups 1684:Delete 1618:(talk) 1606:Delete 1594:Bwithh 1538:WP:DRV 1514:Delete 1502:Sethie 1474:WP:NOR 1450:Sethie 1437:WP:NOR 1425:dposse 1421:WP:NOR 1417:Delete 1403:Bwithh 1378:cation 1369:Sethie 1315:Sethie 1296:Sethie 1279:WP:INN 1270:Sethie 1249:WP:INN 1149:Sethie 1140:Bwithh 1022:at all 991:WP:DRV 962:Delete 950:Sethie 932:Sethie 855:WP:IAR 842:WP:IAR 829:lawyer 825:WP:SIR 781:WP:NFT 771:Fails 754:Seqsea 725:itself 709:Delete 694:Delete 682:Delete 646:Sethie 637:Bwithh 591:Liface 579:Just H 563:Sethie 539:Sethie 463:Delete 451:Delete 430:dumb. 428:Delete 416:Bwithh 387:Bwithh 378:Kernow 371:Bwithh 352:Bwithh 343:Liface 332:Bwithh 273:WP:NFT 158:Delete 88:delete 46:delete 3447:WP:RS 3405:???ds 3398:speer 2950:Rider 2931:Note: 2725:WP:RS 2649:Rdore 2638:Rider 2620:Rdore 2600:Rdore 2551:Rdore 2445:Proto 2344:Rdore 2141:WP:RS 2132:WP:RS 2115:Kizor 2036:Rdore 2013:Anomo 1949:Rdore 1926:WP:RS 1914:WP:RS 1861:WP:RS 1845:Rdore 1822:Telso 1766:3,975 1730:Rider 1711:Kizor 1694:Rider 1652:Proto 1627:Rdore 1460:Clyde 1441:Clyde 1439:. -- 1174:???ds 1167:speer 1013:Kizor 773:WP:RS 663:Proto 601:Proto 506:Proto 441:Rdore 312:ample 304:WP:RS 216:Note: 149:Proto 105:views 97:watch 93:links 16:< 3539:Talk 3527:WP:N 3523:WP:V 3510:Talk 3470:Nate 3451:WP:V 3443:Keep 3423:Nate 3389:Keep 3349:WP:N 3316:WP:N 3308:WP:N 3292:Keep 3270:talk 3219:talk 3207:WP:N 3153:Nate 3052:and 3050:salt 3040:and 3038:salt 3000:WP:V 2964:WP:V 2911:Nate 2883:and 2866:talk 2857:Hugh 2841:Keep 2827:Keep 2697:Nate 2628:WP:N 2592:Keep 2570:Nate 2532:Nate 2513:and 2509:per 2483:talk 2436:H2G2 2417:talk 2394:and 2354:Keep 2254:WP:N 2250:this 2207:Keep 2145:WP:V 2137:does 2110:WP:V 2102:Keep 1984:talk 1924:and 1922:WP:V 1910:WP:V 1865:WP:V 1818:here 1808:and 1749:four 1745:Keep 1637:Keep 1581:talk 1528:and 1526:WP:V 1518:Salt 1516:and 1498:WP:N 1482:talk 1433:Keep 1382:able 1292:WP:N 1266:WP:N 1203:Keep 1120:Keep 1089:WP:V 999:last 995:once 896:talk 880:Keep 831:. -- 810:keep 789:talk 777:WP:N 758:talk 622:Keep 587:Keep 577:nn. 300:WP:V 101:logs 75:talk 71:edit 50:Ezeu 3479:(T) 3467:Big 3432:(T) 3420:Big 3367:." 3351:: " 3257:MfD 3162:(T) 3150:Big 3089:ONE 3083:THE 3065:ONE 3059:THE 2920:(T) 2908:Big 2849:POV 2706:(T) 2694:Big 2579:(T) 2567:Big 2560:has 2558:It 2541:(T) 2529:Big 2442:). 2128:not 1810:114 1806:150 1802:164 1798:215 1794:225 1790:292 1786:382 1782:484 1778:662 1774:767 1770:776 1612:. 1590:And 1540:or 1397:. ( 1251:. 1091:. 308:not 229:spa 147:As 3541:) 3473:37 3426:37 3408:? 3402:/ 3306:. 3273:| 3267:( 3156:37 3048:, 3009:or 2914:37 2904:. 2891:-- 2868:- 2700:37 2573:37 2535:37 2486:| 2480:( 2449::: 2420:| 2414:( 2147:. 1987:| 1981:( 1814:70 1804:, 1800:, 1796:, 1792:, 1788:, 1784:, 1780:, 1776:, 1772:, 1768:, 1656::: 1566:rs 1458:-- 1352:, 1348:, 1344:, 1340:, 1336:, 1177:? 1171:/ 1127:. 898:• 890:— 800:. 779:, 775:, 760:) 667::: 605::: 510::: 239:}} 144:. 136:, 128:, 120:, 116:, 103:| 99:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 77:| 73:| 3537:( 3395:r 3279:) 3260:— 3097:) 3093:( 3086:r 3073:) 3069:( 3062:r 2980:) 2978:C 2975:T 2972:U 2872:) 2864:( 2727:? 2660:. 2492:) 2473:— 2454:? 2426:) 2407:— 2143:/ 1993:) 1974:— 1661:? 1616:| 1562:e 1367:] 1164:r 894:( 756:( 672:? 610:? 515:? 324:" 320:" 302:/ 235:| 231:| 107:) 69:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index