Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/The Game (game)

2381:. I'm not a registered user, I'm only an occasional user of WP and it's clear people such as you refer to anyone like me who posts a comment with severe contempt. That's your own supremacy problems, not mine. Mine is how ridiculous everybody has been about this deletion. Now, I can't be bothered reading all the policy references; I don't overly care. I just thought a bunch of obsessive self-invloved people might appreciate an outside, grass-roots opinion. I imagine there are millions of games around the world - some restricted to a small group of friends, some played the whole world over. Clearly WP cannot abide to list every single one. However, there are certain games such as "hide and seek" or "Simon Says" that have been correctly identified as infiltrating societies the world over. Finding the game unverifiable is utterly ridiculous. I spent a year in the UK last year, and it was such a shock when I found out that four of our group of friends - from all over the world (Australia, US, Germany and Wales) - all played the game. Up until then I thought it was just a Melbourne thing, or at the very most, and Australia thing. The very fact that this game has managed to spread over the entire globe should be verification enough to show that it deserves to be referenced in an encyclopedia that is allegedly concerned with knowledge. Pull your heads out of WP's backside of policy and try to look at this issue with an objective outsiders eye. The deleted article in question was providing people with knowledge that is more generally known than a lot of other articles on WP. Why deny people that? Because you don't like 'the game'? Well I don't like fascism. And that's still on Knowledge (XXG)... both referenced and freely exercised. 2906:. Yes, I know I'm not a reliable wikipedia editor - I'm somewhat of the wiki equivalent of a forum lurker. However, it seems very much to me that the point of nonverifiability is to prevent articles from appearing here that actually aren't verifiable. The Game is a meme; as such, its existence is entirely word-of-mouth (or word-of-keyboard, in some, but by no means, all cases). No, it has not had peer-reviewed articles written on it, because really, what sort of journal would it fit into? I suppose there's a chance that, eventually, it'll be used as an example of the concept of a meme itself, but until then, yes, it's restricted to being mentioned constantly, all over the world, on blogs and forums and real-life talking. In addition to all the people I know play in real life (because really, most of Harvey Mudd knows of The Game), I have had a good handful of experiences where I come into some new forum in which I, personally, have not mentioned the game, to see comments already being made about it. Knowledge (XXG)'s article has become one of the main sources for linking people to information about it, not because it was made up here, but only because it's the sort of thing that's mentioned mainly in passing, and in in-person encounters, not the sort of thing that gets huge papers written about it anywhere other than an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, my argument is that it's ridiculously well-known, and that, in cases such as these, primary documents (i.e. people all over the internet mentioning that they've lost) should count for something, verifiability-wise. -- 927:. This is a conundrum. Clearly, there is much vehement rejection of this article's suitability for Knowledge (XXG). I'm not clear what about this stirs such emotions, as it's a harmless, if silly, diversion, but the emotions are there. I urge everyone to remain civil. =) I'm torn on this one. The Game is clearly, to me, notable, as a widespread phenomenon -- but it also appears to be wholly unverifiable. Worse, its notability and verifiability are themselves almost impossible to verify, simply because of its name (most text searches are basically useless in attempting to find sources about "The Game" for what should be obvious reasons). In light of 429:(which is a policy): "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on that topic. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. And just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Knowledge (XXG)." While this article represents a unique case, continuing to allow it without any hope for sources is in direct violation of both guideline and official policy. I still stand by what I wrote above—the game 3721:. You argue rightly that any of those individual sources is not up to snuff, but what I'm saying is that the result of a Google search is much more significant than any individual result it turns up. What the Google search shows is that lots of different blogs and websites refer to this game and describe it consistently. No individual source proves that, it's the results of a Google search that does prove that. What I want to debate is whether there is some reason that (1) Google searches shouldn't be primary sources, or (2) Google searches are unreliable sources (and if so, in what way). 2203:

doccumentation. That isn't to say, however, it doesn't exist. Clearly, given the number of people (bloggers, myspacers, facebookers, etc.) who are playing this game (or claim to play this game, which is essentially the equivalent), regardless of if they are acceptable sources (again, by Wiki standards), speaks to the existance of this game. So how is one to find a reputable source on the matter? It's not as if The Game would be something one would see covered in a science journal or a book or anything of the sort. So again, how is one to verify the information provided in the article?

1002:- with a new introductory paragraph that addresses the issue of its unverifiable nature, as I suggest on the talk page (Archive 3). As Alfakim said, "There is a precedent for adjusting Wikipolicy or making a new one, because this article is ridiculously notable despite having few or no sources, and this is due to its inherent memetic nature (thus, policy for memes). New policies aside, however, "childish nonsense" is quite wrong. There is no policy against articles describing childish things, and, furthermore, this "nonsense" (which I agree, it is), is a massive, widespread, global, and 1046:. Here are three sources I turned up via a quick search on "I just lost the game" (-wikipedia, to avoid sites that might refer back to the article), as JoshuaZ suggested. www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm ijustlostthegame.ytmnd.com/ www.losethegame.com/default.htm All three establish the basic rules, and have a variant about the "grace period". The latter site even has a little project to trace the origins of The Game. I'll grant, these are not reputable published works, but there are many, many more where that came from. That's the crux of the issue: 3011:

Oh, and that was my answer for how we can be reasonably sure, if you didn't catch it - if a large enough number of people that have no obvious connection to wikipedia are discussing it, and enough of them were in fact discussing it in permanent - even if not peer-reviewed - sources, before the article was made, then that would seem to be a pretty good indication that people were thinking about the game at that time. People can pull tricks with time on the internet, it's true, but there's no reason we should believe that

1927:- Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that Knowledge (XXG) should be able to cover this kind of thing? I mean, I'm all for the search for reputable sources and as soon as one is found and the article is restored, I'll be there to tend to it. But until then, for a phenomenon this notable (and all the controversy surrounding the deletion basically proves this isn't a case of a schoolyard fad blown out of proportion), maybe a disclaimer for the top of articles like this to the effect of: "This article documents a 1624:"A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information: advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources in a work on perceptions of modern technology, for example." 3787:: "We've lost track of Knowledge (XXG)'s ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's existence, then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing any information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Knowledge (XXG)'s true goal." -- 1699:, referring to cases in which primary sources are OK to use for a Knowledge (XXG) article, is satisfied by first-person accounts (easily available on the Web) of people participating in The Game. If you have a bunch of people (in several different locations) who all say they play something called "The Game," and they agree on the rules, and the Knowledge (XXG) article reports that, how could any reasonable adult claim it's not verified? What if we worded it as "'The Game' is a game that some people 1721:

students and is almost completely unknown outside its own subculture. "A bunch of people" can say anything about anything; that proves nothing. At the end of the day, an average reasonable person is left with hearsay and a few losethegame.iforumer.com/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=losethegame mostly justlostthegame.proboards92.com/index.cgi empty ilostthegame.com/forum/default.asp forums www.jeffsnet.co.uk/game2.htm and www.forgetthegame.co.uk/ websites, and that doesn't add up to verification. --

2363:, per Sam, Tito, Rossami, Xoloz, Zoe, fuddlemark, and most especially Seqsea, who has done a marvellous job here. This has severe problems with verification and sourcing, and quite simply cannot be an encyclopedia entry, not even on a relatively liberal encyclopedia like Knowledge (XXG). I'm quite concerned at some of the incredible interpretations of policy being advanced to butress the argument to restore. Sean was faced with a tough close, but he made a good call by the encyclopedia. — 2323:. It seems to me that the problem here is that the proponents of deletion do not realise that the blogs are being used as primary material to prove that a substantial number of people play The Game. Secondly, there is the problem of verifiability of the rules. While some of the sources cited by the people voting to keep might not ordinarily be regarded as reliable, they are sources talking about themselves (as players of The Game), which are permitted under 1063:

rules? I think the existence of a site trying to track the origins of The Game is evidence of its existence and its notability. Also, I tried for a little and couldn't find any examples of memes being written about in reputable sources: people write about the general idea of memes and their spread, but examples are few and far between... so this is about as reputable as we can get for this entire broad topic. I doubt a tenth of the articles in

2487:. And no-one, even the supporters of the return of the article www.savethegame.org/List_of_reliable_sources_referring_to_The_Game trying to collect them, can find them. I certainly can't. Please note that as well as repeating "where are the sources for this?" regularly and removing unsourced material from articles (after due warning), I try to have moments of relatively constructive contribution, and have quite a history of doing the work and 310:: there is a precedent for adjusting Wikipolicy or making a new one, because this article is ridiculously notable despite having few or no sources, and this is due to its inherent memetic nature (thus, policy for memes). New policies aside, however, "childish nonsense" is quite wrong. There is no policy against articles describing childish things, and, furthermore, this "nonsense" (which I agree, it is), is a massive, widespread, global, and 2890:

exerted, restoring the article without an independent third party publishing a report of the game in a peer reviewed publication would effectively mean that there is no way to tell if the articles the Knowledge (XXG) community has spent time reviewing are true or a hoax. Please remember that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and as an encyclopedia must be able to show the basis for the information it contains. --

243:

that effectively means the game exists. And when it's so widespread that forums such as forums.somethingawful.com The Something Awful Forums have a special rule in which people who post "the game" topics are banned, that makes it an incredibly noteable meme? You don't get banned on SA for nonnoteable memes. This was obviously a huge problem on SA for it to gain that status, which means it definitely exists. --

108: 2710:. That other articles exist in the encyclopedia without citing their sources is not a reason to allow this one to exist; rather, it is a reason to go out and source the rest of our articles. We are building an encyclopedia, and in the absence of expert contributors with reputations to protect and PhDs to their credit, we maintain credibility by pointing to outside sources that back up what we write. — 406:. Do you have links to the three AfD discussions? I can only find the first, which was less than five months ago. It appears that the article was repeatedly nominated for deletion with the hope that one of those times the result would be 'delete'. If it was indeed kept twice, I'd be extremely interested to see what changed to cause the deletion on the third try, after such a short period of time. 1407: 3681:"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Knowledge (XXG) article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." 3910:

that would be taken as sufficient evidence that I did, and a combination of thousands of these on Google would show that thousands play The Game. Further, if I and many other people all agreed in our primary source material that the rules we used were X, Y and Z, then that is sufficient evidence that these are indeed the rules. While this article falls under the clause of

1931:, which spreads mostly by word-of-mouth and is typically unverifiable through traditional, published sources. Please help Knowledge (XXG) by searching for reputable sources that mention the topic and citing them here." Once even one is found, the message can be removed (and I'll add a section to the article called 'Knowledge (XXG) Deletion Controversy,' or something ;)).-- 1983: 1835:. But I think it's possible that certain categories of knowledge need a more flexibile definition of "acceptable source." "The Game" is an unusual situation in that it's a non-Internet meme, but the fact that numerous sources (even though they have less reliability than is normally acceptable) all agree on the basic definition ought to be enough. In this case. 1750:

because that is when I set-up the Game Tree at its own site www2.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=thegame&view=9&rand=143131117, where now almost 500 people have left their details. The most recent reply on the old fourm was on the 22nd March. Also, you should take into account the objective of this game when refering to how much it has been discussed.

217:. Proof of the existence of The Game is undeniable. Heck, in my local library, in the back corner (where no one ever goes, really) is a poster. On this poster are the words "You Just Lost The Game". Things available at local libraries count as reliable. Now, the old content may or may not have been folowing policy. The artical SHOULD exist, though. -- 1452:

The Game, because we're doing it right now. There is nothing preventing a newspaper, magazine, or sociology professor from writing about The Game beyond the fact that nobody appears to want to. Note that I am not arguing that it is non-notable or non-existent. I am arguing that it is (1) not inherently sourceless and (2) not currently verifiable.

1612:"Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations." 3436:. What to do from here is anybodies guess. I've www.google.com/search?hs=lT1&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22just+lost+the+game%22+%22the+game+is%22&btnG=Search googled it a little and am satisfied there is a case to be made for this article. At least, enough of a case to respect that consensus is necessary. Peace. ॐ 3006:

back-dated blog entries and the like. Personally, though, it seems to me that thinking that is just as much of an original research concern as stating that someone was, say, quoted incorrectly in a news article or somesuch. Yes, one went through a peer-review and the other did not... but it seems to me that a sufficient

2968:

spread via other means, and only given an article after it became widely known). As for it being "spectactularly non-notable", well, I'd think the huge numbers of people all over the world discussing it would call it otherwise, or why would they be discussing it? As far as the game article, specifically, goes, its point

935:, the inherent difficulties in finding verifiable sources MUST be taken into account in this unique situation, and I do not believe that was done in closing the third AfD; couple that with a plethora of otherwise valid Keep votes, indicating a definite lack of consensus, and I cannot endorse the closure of that AfD. 1811:- the passion of the deletionists notwithstanding, this was a useful article, which should trump the supposed need to have it written about in a non-internet source. I believe that in terms of something not being "verifiable" because it's only written about on blogs (so far), wikipedia is falling behind the times. 4130:

In the UK, fanatics have developed several strategies to make their fellow players lose. They write "The Game" in big letters on the chalkboard in front of the class, they hide little notes saying that the founder of the note has lost. The ultimate strategy is, of course, to remind the competition of

3914:

that allows an article to be based entirely on primary sources, since the primary sources used could be found by a simple Google search by anyone, and the facts are not really under dispute by anyone, I think that, while blogs and personal websites are not generally accepted as secondary sources, the

3683:

A google web search such as www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22I+just+lost+the+game%22+OR+%22the+game+is+to+forget%22+-wikipedia+-wiki&btnG=Search this one is raw data, but is reliable, and can be easily used to back up claims of what The Game is and what its

3470:

entry that "almost 2 million journals are actively used"www.livejournal.com/stats.bml. Where's the proof? Well, the people who run livejournal say it's true. But how do they know? Well, they count posts. But... AHA! Posts aren't valid sources, therefore you cannot prove that any journals are actually

3278:

sources for things like the game, but then, I'd be happy accepting blogs as primary sources, too. It would be far sketchier trying to use them as nonprimary sources, though. However, my bigger point is this: nobody has been able to find any articles about the game in school papers, and there's a darn

2938:

is designed to prevent, though. While it states that the purpose is to protect the 'Pedia from "physics cranks", it serves an additional purpose of preventing people using Knowledge (XXG) to popularise and spread memes. By your argument, any meme that becomes large enough should have an article, even

2215:

It seems to me that most of these delete votes are ridiculous, because they are basically this: "until a scientific journal writes an article on it, no article here." So the moment someone writes a report on it, all of your votes are revoked? Upon one scientific report? Well great! I'm going to start

1782:

leaving aside the fact that Deletion Review is supposed to be about the process of an article being deleted, not the content, this is not an original source because that section refers to published works that are themselves original sources, not interviews that you conduct yourself. It is appropriate

1062:

says, it's impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." So, let's consider them from first principles. I can't think of a way in which these sources could be biased, at least not when it comes to whether the rules of the game are correct: what reason would they have to misrepresent the

242:

Uh, yes it is. There are hundreds of sources on the internet - so what if they're blogs? That means that all the people who have written about it are playing the game. What better source than a huge list of people who are actively playing the game? And surely, if there are people playing it, as I do,

4101:

The player who loses the game by thinking about it, is obliged to state out loud that he lost. One version says that all other players in the vicinity lose as well, other versions give other players a short amount of time - ten minutes ot half an hour, the rules are vague - to forget about the game

3909:

Secondly, on the substantive issue. I think it is important to distinguish between the value of 'blogs as primary and secondary sources. That is to say, if I said on my 'blog, "Thousands of people worldwide play the game", that would not be a reliable source, but if I said that, "I play the Game",

3744:

I don't really buy that; it depends on what statement the google search is trying to back up. For instance, the statement "A google search on this phrase returns over 9000 links" is perfectly backed up by a google search, though it's not likely to be useful in an article. Interpreting that claim a

3010:

of first-hand sources that are not obviously connected to one another in any way, should count somewhat towards showing that something like this exists. I am aware that this would require a slight bending of current rules - I just feel that bending them in this way would be a reasonable thing to do.

2986:

That's an interesting argument and one of the most coherent made on this topic in a while. Unfortunately, the flaw in the argument is that without reliable sources, there's no way for the rest of us to know that the facts behind it are correct. Take, for example, your assertion that "the game did,

2652:

a while ago. Then I remember when I started at university someone "lost the game". I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that almost half the people in the room (who before that week had never even met each other, and came from all over the country) knew what he was talking about. And of course the rest

1749:

As I have pointed out to you a number of times in our previous discussions, if you actually read what you were refering to, before refering to it, it would save us both a lot of time. The post which you are talking about was the original Game Tree. The reason no replies have been left since then, is

1451:

While the stated purpose of The Game is to forget about it, not everyone who knows about it is actively trying to forget it. That we had the article to begin with, that it was in AFD three times, and that it is now in DRV shows that fairly well. It is demonstrably false that nobody has written about

3800:

is a mere guideline created to aid in our pursuit of that goal. It is, instead, the most important principle we have with regards to content inclusion. There is no room for pushing aside this particular policy by claiming that "nobody contests the truth of what is being written". I think the policy

3756:

It's an interesting question. Can very large numbers in a google test be evidence of the degree to which a word or concept has become widespread? Intuitively, it makes some sense. One of the assumptions in the question is that the numbers are sufficiently large for it to be impossible this to be

2889:

Undeleting this article without any reliable sources does harm Knowledge (XXG) by directly attacking the project's credibility. Considerable effort has been expended trying to find one source for this article that is not based on anonymous contributions or hearsay. After this much effort has been

1682:

How is an adult without any specialist knowledge supposed to verify this? Googling "the game" and seeing websites really isn't enough for me. That would only prove that someone was trying to spread this. Should I go to a college campus and ask random people if they know about it? Should I shout

1609:"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Knowledge (XXG) article may be based entirely on primary sources" 1455:

LexisNexis (which I wish I'd spelled properly the first time, given the amount of times I've been quoted), has 213 college and university newspapers in its database. I made sure to spend a little extra time in that section, because I thought that college newspapers would be the best place to find a

261:

They aren't quite as strict as you think.. memes have to be incredibly overused to become bannable offenses on SA, so it means that a lot of threads and posts were being made about The Game. It's a stretch to consider this as support, maybe, but it does show how widespread and popular this game is.

4174:

Memes are mutable and unfixed by their very nature, but I liked the fact that every time the game came up, I'd reference this wikipedia article. I know some groups even kept printouts of it so that if they lost The Game then they could refer people to the document itself (yes, people actually play

2967:

think that any meme that becomes large enough that huge numbers of people all over the world know about and discuss it should have an article, even if it was created solely to become large enough for an article (I'm not sure why this would have any bearing on the issue at all, assuming that it was

2032:

and throw it to RFC. I personally think it was no concensus (which wouldn't really be a good result), but I think it was deleted for the correct reason. I don't really see relisting it resulting in anything other than no consensus either. Nevertheless, I believe there is enough support for this

4120:

In the US and UK the game is, mainly in schools and university, a modest hype. In Brazil, Australia and Japan, more and more youngsters follow. Nearer to us, the game starts appearing as well - slowly at the moment, but unstoppable all the same. The first rule determines that whoever knows of the

3734:

as significant as its results, though. Google may be able to come up with 9580 matches for some search phrase, but if not a one of those is a suitable source then the search was pointless in the first place. Let's face it, a Google search result is nothing more (or less) than a list of links; and

1434:

No one denies the existence of the game, and it was not deleted as non-notable. It was deleted as unverified and almost assuredly unverifiable. Many of the people who voted in favor of deletion, and many of the people contributing to this discussion, did so with the qualification that if The Game

3759:

I certainly would not trust the raw result before the elimination of the "non-unique" results. Given the known problems with skewing of the results, I'd probably place low weight even on the de-duplicated results. It's a single data point. It might be supporting evidence but not enough, in my

3283:

thing to do! Once you know the rules, assuming you care, you are forced to play. For that reason, people, or at least people I know, have adopted an unofficial rule that you don't tell people what the game is unless they really are dying to know. Writing "I just lost" somewhere public is a good

3237:: I've been seeing complaints that googling for "the game" gets few sources about this particular game. It's true - it's a rather common phrase, with, among other distractions, a movie, an album, a rapper, and at least three other games I can think of named the same. However, if you search for " 3005:

vote - just using you as a sounding board for my own opinions, in the hopes that perhaps I will convince others who, being on the fence about the issue, decide to read these comments. That said - yes, there could be a massive conspiracy of people and their sock-puppets to create and disseminate

3581:

was simply an afterthought to my actual explanation of my support for the restoration of the article. I only intended to suggest it as a further example of an article of dubious notability and/or verifiability. Since those who wish that the article remain deleted are basing their arguments on

2832:

OK, here's what I don't get. Obviously, if someone wrote a letter and said "Hey, there's this great new game sweeping the nation, everyone should start playing it," that's clearly not reliable evidence for the game's existence. However, when the letter ITSELF is part of the game, it's equally

1720:

is given as an example: anyone (or at least anyone in a Western nation) can verify firsthand the existence, nature, and popularity of apple pie so easily that it seems like nitpicking to require proof of same. The Game is an obscure activity that is largely confined to a small number of college

1106:

This seems very different from what happened to Gastrich. The website doesn't advocate the construction of meatpuppets or anything of that sort. All it has is its own little wiki so people can work to finding reliable sources. Seems like a complete waste of time to me, but in no way problematic

688:

Of course you can! If twenty people say "delete, nn", and two people say "it's notable and verifiable, see this newspaper article, that government website, and the shrine built in the middle of Sydney to the existence of this phenomenon", then you aren't going to delete ... or, if you are, you

2096:

I won't repeat all the arguments above, except to say that there is some small class of concepts that may not ever be verifiable, because of the nature of what they are. This concept is in that class. Further, sometimes common sense is required rather than strict adherence to process.(Shocking

2202:

In a case such as this, how is one to verify? It isn't as if this is something that would have a great deal of attention devoted to it on the internet (aside from declerations of loss, of course), or have papers published on it, or have any sort of acceptable (by Knowledge (XXG) standards)

2155:

That's not how the article looked for most of the time before it was finally deleted. To elaborate: The article was getting filled with loads of unverifiable original research about The Game's origins, "rule variations" and "strategies", and psychological jargon-filled discussions on memory

875:. If it's so damn notable someone other than bloggers should have written about it. The notion that something can have no sources by virtue of its memetic nature, rather than the fact only people on the Internet care about it, is provably false. I think somewhere on Knowledge (XXG) we give 3326:

stupid. I'm perfectly willing to admit this, despite finding it quite funny. I don't see why this would make it any less notable, though. It's something a large number of people know and care about, thus (assuming people decide, as I'd like them to, that primary sources are enough to show

2972:

fairly obviously to to document, not to promote. Yes, as the best reference document existing on the internet, it did get linked to a fair amount by people who wanted to give their friends the opportunity to learn what it was without telling them explicitly... but that doesn't mean it was

3186:, but this is a meme, and wholly veriafiable through nontraditional sources such as blogs, which ought to be good enough for a meme of such noteworthy status. Maybe a caveat in policy is what's needed. Until that happens, or a true RS is found, though, why can't this article survive with 3071:. These policies are very carefully thought out to insure that Knowledge (XXG) articles meet a minimum standard of being verified by references to reputable published sources. Unless and until this subject meets nthe standards of those policies, it does not belong in Knowledge (XXG). -- 1792:

I'm not sure how we can avoid commenting on the content. The closing admin made a content decision when closing instead of gauging consensus. While you are allowed to do that, the content becomes germane to the discussion over whether to overturn the result of the AFD in such cases.

983:" A lot of the keep votes were new or anon users, whereas a couple of long-standing editors changed to delete after inspecting the evidence. I searched for hours for good sources for this article and found none. I'll be more than happy to support it's re-creation when some are found. -- 132:

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Knowledge (XXG) editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

2987:

after all, exist many years before the wikipedia article did." How do you know? How can the rest of us know? Given that anyone can edit anonymously and that even logged in users are pseudonymous, how can we be reasonably sure of that statement? No change of vote, I'm afraid.

1341:

Yeah, that's pretty well what I meant, I should have been clearer. On a side note, I looked at that source, and it doesn't impress me: it's pretty well using the Game as a lede into an article about notable games, although the bit about learning about it in Borneo is pretty neat.

1080:. Especially YTMND, even though they appear at times to regard Knowledge (XXG) as their personal playground. And when I find out who created savethegame.org I will have their ass in front of ArbCom, because that is precisely the kind of thing that got Gastrich blocked - it's 725:. We should not keep unverifiable content however many poeple think it's "notable", any more than we should keep copyvios or anything else that violates fundamental policy. Erring in favour of keep is for things which are verifiable, but arguably not notable or important. 3024:

I've been attempting to make the same argument, but I don't think it's going anywhere. Unfortunately, we need a secondary source; the primary sources aren't cutting it in the minds of most folks here. I personally see these primary sources as an exception (as listed on

2550:

I agree completely with that. I, too, have tried to find pages on this, but have had no luck whatsoever. Every time I get a hit for "The Game" it seems to be about a rapper who goes by said name. I believe that this article is still nonsense and therefore keep my vote as

2432:

Um... it says right on top of this page: "Also note: although not verifiable per Knowledge (XXG) standards, it is quite easily verifiable (see above) that The Game is very widespread, and not just confined to "small groups of college students" or a "schoolground fad"."

3970:"In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources." 3273:

valuable than blogs - I've seen the process at school papers, and it seems to be mainly, "you give us an article, if we think it's interesting we'll check it for typos (but not much else) and then print it". I'd be fine with accepting articles from papers like that as

1018:. The closing admin is the same person putting it up for DRV, so let him change his mind. We have many articles on things which are quite notable but are not verifiable using old media. It seems people simply want to make an example out of this article by deleting it. 879:

as an example that just because something is popular among children it doesn't have to be unsourced. And AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and if none of the numerous keep voters could come up with a source, all the more reason to endorse the closing admin's decision.

4189:. Just because we don't know the origins of The Game doesn't mean it is unverifiable. It clearly exists (my high school age son loses The Game repeatedly, as do his friends). I can't understand how "verifiability" can be used to justify deletion in this case. -- 3918:

Lastly, I think that we need to use a little common sense here. We have something that is clearly notable, clearly true, and about which many third-party opinions can easily be found. Really, at the end of the day, policies (with the exception perhaps of the

3473:

This is of course nonsense. But what's the difference? A website has counted hundreds of players of The Gamewww.savethegame.org/Compiled_list_of_sources, mostly on blogs and forums, but AHA! posts aren't valid sources, therefore you cannot prove that they were

2747:". If it's not verifiable, it must be deleted, and it must remain deleted until reputable non-blog, non-forum, non-created-for-the-purpose-of-saving-an-article references are available. Also note that the making of www.savethegame.org is a gross violation of 1135:

of the sources at savethegame.org is anything other than a blog, Urbandictionary, or H2G2, despite the attempts at portraying them as something other than that. Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity.

3542:

as per Ashibaka and Adam Field. It seems like Knowledge (XXG) policy was written without even having the potential for such an article as this in mind. I think that the policy is out of date and should be modified, and therefore it is acceptable to invoke

2460:

I was under the impression that our thoughts on the meaningfulness of article subjects don't matter. Furthermore, as is mentioned on top of the page it's quite easily verifiable that the game is very widespread - which kinda shreds the non-notable argument.

4140:

But every victory is short, for it is always temporary. The ultimate victory does not exist, the Game never ends. Even for expert players, it is not known what the origins of the game are. On the internet, several websites are dedicated to finding those

3618:

It's also interesting to note that I didn't see anyone suggest the lack of verifiable references to "O RLY" as a reason to delete it. The only difference I see is that "O RLY" is an internet phenomenon, and thus easily verifiable, and The Game isn't.

3757:

merely the result of a concerted effort by a small number of partisans. Google, unfortunately, is subject to just that kind of bias in its results. That's why, for example, the google test is a poor indicator for topics associated with pornography.

2600:

The Game exists, more so than some religions. Perhaps we should delete the Bible because there's no evidence of Genesis? Oh, and you just lost it :) btw. Answers.com has an article of the game, for what good it makes. - G3, 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1418:

It has no sources because it is in its nature to be unsourced? Circular reasoning does not help this argument, but sources would. The premise implies that everyone who knows about the game wants to play it, and no-one wants to write about it instead.

767:

deletion. Nothing suggests that process wasn't followed, from what I can see. Furthermore, various users have been spamming talk pages of everyone who participated in the AFD with links to some website about saving the Game's Knowledge (XXG) article.

3582:

verifiability and notability (mostly verifiability), any examples of how this issue is being dealt with elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG) are useful as a reference for how to improve the Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, which I hope is everyone's goal here. --

3456:: the hundreds of blog entries, thousands of comments, and the exhaustive research on where it came from, are valid sources for this because there is nothing about The Game that is in doubt. Every post that states the rules of The Game is not just 1783:

to discuss the legitimacy of a disputed source in the article where the legitimacy of that source exists outside Knowledge (XXG), not within. And having no legitimate sources at all is still grounds for deletion under Verifiability constraints.

4027:

A single human-interest newspaper article is not, in my opinion, sufficient to support an entire encyclopedia article. As was said on the Talk page already, we don't know where the author got his/her information. No change of opinion yet.

3387:

Yes, really. Votes like that really don't help our case - we need to argue merely that either a. this article was verifiable under current rules, or b. the current rules can and should be bent to allow the level of verifiability the article

2181:(keep deleted). The arguments about lack of verification are compelling. The counter-arguments are, to my mind, weak. Furthermore, the repeated attempts to stuff the ballot are very concerning. They appear to be seriously degrading our 1456:

reference. The simple fact is that I could not find any references. I do not mean to say that no such references exist, only that I was unable to find them, and that I spent hours looking. Other contributors have done the same. Presumably,

3591:

Knowledge (XXG) is not run by precedent. I feel that allowing articles that can't be verified by reliable sources is highly detrimental to wikipedia and it's credibility. In fact, policy already says that we can't do that. We can't ignore

3700:

explicitly says that under Self-published sources, "books, personal websites and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." And before you jump on the word "largely", it goes on to list the exceptions - and they don't include memes.

2842:

The letter, even if it is part of the game, is not a reliable source. Its kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy...and exactly why we rely on information verified by reliable sources and not original research to populate our encyclopedia.

744:

I haven't actually made any suggestions at all here. I have simply asked why an AfD was closed in a way which appears on the surface to be non-standard. It is questionable whether the last AfD did establish a consensus for deletion.

800:

and keep deleted. I think we can satisfactorily prove that Mao Zhedong existed from multiple non-trivial secondary sources,and even if we couldn't the existence of one unverifiable article doesn't justify the inclusion of another.

40:

The result of the debate was keep deleted. There are some area that we can afford to be slack on. Verification is not one of them. I'd urge everyone who wants an article kept based upon a single (unsourced) newspaper article to

1254:. As the axiom says, it's a discussion, not a vote, and the discussion supported the closing administrator's decision. It is also an axiom to err towards keeping the article, but in this case I don't feel any erring was involved. 2625:: the word wobblegrommit exists, because I just made it up, and now exists on WP, but is too trivial for its own entry. Perhaps a compromise would be to mention "the game" under some philosophy section on self-referential ideas. 4042:

What the **** do you WANT, then? The existence and rules of The Game have been irrefutable, at least for all practical purposes, all along. This is independent high-quality verification in the press, this is a secondary source.

476:

a) It was an advert and therefore not reliable b) it implied it got its information from Knowledge (XXG) in the first place and was therefore even less reliable c) it didn't actually say anything about what the Game was anyway.

4168:

Reading this discussion, and the discussion on the page itself, is disappointing. The most part of voters would seem to aim to damage wikipedia for the sake of sticking to a rule which doesn't even have much relevance in this

1639:"In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy" 425:(which is just a guideline): "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." From 2243:"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Knowledge (XXG), the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet" 2097:

statement from me, eh?) This is one of those times. The Game is notable enough to merit inclusion. An article could certainly include discussion of why it's not easily verifiable without shading into original research...

1730:

The losethegame.iforumer.com/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=losethegame losethegame.com forum that you refer to was only made a few days ago. The pub7.bravenet.com/forum/590265674 old losethegame.com forum is not so empty.

1151:

for now. I am persuaded that most keep voters in the debate(s) don't have a great understanding of WP:RS. On the other, I am unhappy with the dismissive attitude taken by some advocates for deletion: this game is

437:

played—but that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Until it becomes popular enough to have more than a handful of hits on Google, it should remain the province of college dorms, high school homerooms, and blogs.

4162:

Since this meme clearly does exist, both socially and textually, it seems pedantic and overly dogmatic to delete the article just for the sake of sticking to a rule which actually hinders Knowledge (XXG) in this

1447:

says that we should be a tertiary source. If we cannot verify what we have written, it needs to be removed from the article; if the entire article is unverified, the entire article needs to be removed—or sources

3986:: People seem to be getting a bit confused here. Just because it only Googles a few hundred "Unique Results", it doesn't mean that there are only a few hundred individual websites mentioning it. I learnt from 1172:

and improve. Surely the solution is to leave it, and make a plea for sources? The Game's very nature defies citations in formal sources (mostly), but that is no reason to remove a widespread, and interesting,

3288:

paper, at least, doing anything of the sort. Of course, yes, most school papers just wouldn't print it because they'd think it was stupid. This is because most schools aren't full of geeks like mine is. But

2126:

The article was a total mess, made up entirely of unverifiable information, original research, and nonsensical "psychological analysis." Sadly, I can't see that changing if the article were to be restored.

1235:- there's enough debate in this very thread, including the sources shown so far, that the error should have been on the side of keeping. The closing admin opened the DRV, for that matter, showing doubt. -- 183: 4111:

The Game must be the simplest game in the world. It all comes down to: "the moment you think about it, you loose". Psychology 101: try very hard not to think about something and you will think about it.

3051:

It is pretty obvious from all the comments here, and from the many blogs that discuss it, that the Game exists, and is fairly popular. That should be enough reason to have the article. No censorship!

1006:

phenomenon." I think this is the perfect place for a new precedent. If the outcome of this DRV is to leave The Game deleted and delete Mao too, I think we'll be shooting Knowledge (XXG) in its knees.

4052:

I have to say I'm with Kizor here, though of course I wouldn't endorse his implied strong language - we've now found a reference in a reliable published source. What do you want, a cover article in

3904:

of which can often be determined by votes. To delete an article just because a single administrator made the highly subjective judgement that "the discussion went towards delete" is just ridiculous.

3218:

is not to justify the creation of articles that violate policy; rather, it is to alert editors to a problem that requires attention, research, and, if no appropriate sources can be found, AFD. —

3900:

cannot be trumped by consensus, the real issue on the AfD was whether it and other policies were applicable in this situation. While AfD is not a vote, it is an attempt to form consensus, the

2823:

No, that is the same situation we have for things in imdb bios or blogs. A letter to the editor is not a reliable source even if the publication that it appears in IS a reliable source. --

282:. Childish, unverifiable nonsense is still childish, unverifiable nonsense even if other crap gets kept. If you have an issue with the other stuff being here, then go after that instead. 2447:

This game seems to be nonsense. By what I've read it's just a game that you win when not thinking about it and you lose if you think about it. Plus the source I read this from seems to be

1270:, we should discount their votes. Verifiability is essential and I'm pleased that some editors still believe in it. No prejudice against recreation using reliable sources, of course. 2789:

As I said before, Savethegame is a webpage devoted to finding source that are Knowledge (XXG)-reliable, it does not appear to be intended as a source in of itself. There seems to be no

421:: I just spent a couple of hours scouring LexisNexus, ProQuest, InfoWeb, and Google for anything related to the game. Only Google returns results and they are all blogs or forums. From 3284:

prank - it only affects people who already know what it means. Writing the full rules to the game somewhere, on the other hand, is a potentially mean-spirited prank, and I can't see

2158:

Cleanup of the article and requests for sources were attempted, but it continued to fill up with junk. This, combined with the lack of reliable sources, is what led to its deletion.

2483:

policy." Almost all the people arguing for the restoration of the article are doing so on the grounds that it can be validated from their experience. It doesn't matter. We need

1629:

The Game was refered to in an advertisement in MacWorld & MacAddict publications. Its legitimacy has been disputed because it includes a link to the Knowledge (XXG) article.

897:

Look. The entire point of The Game is for itself to be forgotten. It is inherently sourceless. Furthermore, it travels almost entirely by word of mouth: it is, very much, only

1543:

are the three innegotiable content policies. Anything that fails any one of them either needs to be cleaned up or be removed. As this is not verifiable, it shouldn't be here.

1156:

to becoming verifiable, and I expect a thorough search of major college newspapers will soon reveal WP:V-compliant articles. So the article will be resurrected soon enough.

3492:: That's a terrible argument for this situation. The first example is simply counting all of the active journals used, regardless of content. It's statistical data about the 3302:

publish something about this? If it's too stupid for a student newspaper, what makes it appropriate for an encyclopedia that aspires to compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica?

1644:

It should be noted that all of the discussion above was made without reference to this potential source, and without anyone adding the first 2004 AfD to the list at the top.

467:

A source was found (prior to this search) in MacWorld & MacAddict publications, but because it refered to the Knowledge (XXG) article its reliability has been disputed.

177: 3405:

Yes, I fear the serious discussion of the merits is getting obscured by those who don't fully understand the nuances and just vote "Keep" because they like The Game.

2809:

I just noticed that a "letter to the editor" sort of column at the BBC has a mention of The Game. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4638900.stm Is that a reliable source?

1246: 88:

as unverifiable but it was pointed out that things can be notable even if we don't have a verifiable source. So, I submit to you that this game is as notable as Mao.

3696:

Not quite. Google isn't a primary source either; the primary sources in that instance are the vast number of non-notable blogs that the Google search links to, and

717:

No, deletion debates should err in favour of seeing if any policies are violated. Which in this case they clearly are: it was argued convincingly that this fails

140:. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review 2833:

obvious that it is being played. That the letter was written is verifiable. The letter itself is the game. How is that not verifiable evidence for the game?

2685:. There are tons of articles less well sourced than this, and without a significant number of Wikipedians and outside websites vouching for their authenticity. 638:

So you're saying, in the end the only person who matters in a deletion debate is the administrator who closes it? Sweet, I'll be using that rationale to delete

592:

If you don't believe me, tally it yourself. Therefore this DRV now carries the additional point that the article was deleted out of process for no damn reason.

3015:

has done so...? Synopsis: First-hand sources are first-hand sources. They should be treated slightly different from second- or third-hand sources, methinks. --

136:

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our

2216:

writing an article about the game, and I'll send it off for publication! (I may actually do this, but do you see the point? This is ridiculous beurocracy).--

121:

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is

3178:- Does no one else find the need to find traditionally reliable sources in this case a little ridiculous? No one arguing for overturning wants to ignore 2588:

I've been fighting for this article for too long to give up now. I'm not going to repost my reasons here, but I still believe this article should exist.

3298:

Now you have confused me. You say that "most school papers just wouldn't print because they'd think it was stupid" but you think that Knowledge (XXG)

2405:

Your strawman argument that people don't like the game is utter rubbish. Try actually reading the deletion comments. Nobody is saying it doesn't exist.

947:

Note also that one can in fact verify its notability by googling for the phrase "I just lost The Game." Almost all the hits returned refer to The Game.

451:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_%28game%29_%282_nomination%29&diff=44584335&oldid=44583039

2861:; there is no real reason to delete this page. How on earth is Knowledge (XXG) harmed by having this article on there? Not at all. Let's relist it... 2741:. It doesn't matter if people remember it. Verify it. That line right under the edit box says "Content must not violate any copyright and must be 1471:, the article would have been kept, and rightly so. Voting terminology is often used, but that is for convenience, not as a philosophical endorsement. 674:

Yup, and what I learned at RfA is that process is important. You can't just ignore an AfD turnout which had twice as many keep votes as delete votes.

3605:

Would that the matter be more straightforward. The Game is a rare border case. Anyway, the O RLY?? deletion debate does not set a precedent, but it

3241:

the game" (or "lost the game"), about half the hits on the first page are related. Furthermore, if you make the restriction slightly tighter, to "

485:", it's about letting readers trace information back to where it comes from. That supposed source did not make that possible, to say the least. -- 4175:

this In The Real World). Why doesn't Knowledge (XXG) actually create a damn reference instead of fiddyfaddling around with looking for others'.

3551:

seems to call for the deletion of about half of the Knowledge (XXG). In any case, The Game is more notable and about equally verifiable as the

1740:

The most active topic on that forum has 24 replies, the most recent of which is from February 15. The second most active topic has 4 replies. --

509:

b) As far as I am aware, there are no Knowledge (XXG) policies that deal with this situation, where the only source refers to Knowledge (XXG).

2397: 3269:

I just thought of: People are stating that college newspapers would be a good source to find. First off, I fail to see how these are any

1485:, as well as books and a film. Please don't ask me to defend that particular article right now, though, because this discussion is about 2451:

reliable due to the fact that it just lists some rules and has a message board with few posts. In my opinion, it doesn't seem notable.

2065:

RFAR doesn't really like content issues and I'm not fond of them changing policy either. I wouldn't particularly object to it though.

3126: 2479:

says that Knowledge (XXG) "is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our

1067:

could be sufficiently sourced if we don't allow for semi-reliable sources... and I really don't think we should delete all of those.

2156:

suppression. Not to mention the debate over whether this is really an actual "game," and whether the article should treat it as such.

1536: 3915:

very large number which describe The Game can, I think be taken as a legitimate secondary source (albeit perhaps a fairly weak one).

3684:

rules are. The article isn't making any evaluative claims here: just that the game is a known phenomenon, and what its rules are.

1976: 1493:

article. My vote for deletion was and is based on policy, not on a hatred for game/memecruft (which, for the record, I do not have).

3068: 1994:

what the fuck? Deleted out of process without any reasonable reason. Of course there are a lot of sources. Just fucking Google it.

1540: 582:

Update: After LtPowers' comment, I tallied up the keep and delete votes, excluding sockpuppets and anons, and the actual tally was:

3880:. I know the game exists, because I have friends who play it, but without a verifiable source, this is clearly original research. 3347: 3304:(By the way, your comment about student newspapers is well put. They may be a half-step above blogs but few could be considered 548:

should stay in. Note that Sapiosexual was actually no consensus but the AfD seemed to be leaning closer to keep than to delete.

338:. I would like to know why the AfD was closed as a delete. I haven't counted but it seemed to me a majority of votes were keep. 481:

isn't a game called "Find x number of mentions of something on Google and you get to write an article in Knowledge (XXG) about

3735:

there is no way a list of links off some website can be acceptable as a primary source, even if there are 9580 entries on it.

3331:

entirely silly. There are a lot of articles on silly topics here, which makes sense, as someone might want to look them up.

3305: 2300:

I have to agree. While there are plenty of good reasons to endorse this deletion, I don't believe this is one of them. --

1444: 1055: 422: 3717:

think of Google searches as sources at all, but I actually do mean to use the google search results as a primary source

3377: 3279:

good reason for it. Explicitly stating the rules of the game, to those people who would take them seriously, is a truly

3029:) to the need for secondary sources, like raw data that doesn't need interpreting. But we seem to be in the minority. 2348: 2306: 2255: 2017: 1360: 1189: 989: 4210: 3931:

are just there to help us build a better encyclopedia. Does it really help our encyclopedia to delete this article? --

2657:

group for "The Game" has 973 members, making it one of the largest groups. Unfortunately non-members can't see it, but

959:

It's possible to verify notability that way, but not to verify unnotability. =) Or unverifiability for that matter.

141: 17: 2351:) pre-dating the original articles creation date, 00:01, 19 August 2004 (retreived through an admin in #wikipedia). -- 458:

can never get that time back. Please don't let it have been in vain. Endorse Delete so we can end this foolishness. --

2423:- I have read the original article. This really just seems to be a bunch of bloggers trying to spread their meme. - 2291:

Yeah, except that website isn't intended to disrupt WP, it's intended to find WP-acceptable sources for The Game.

1217:. Lack of verifiability clearly demonstrated. Closure was in compliance with appropriate Knowledge (XXG) policy ( 506:: "advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources", I assume this also applies to more recent advertisements. 3064: 2743: 1580: 1532: 1285:

It's clearly been shown to be unverifiable, and no-one's produced any new sources to verify it from since then. --

426: 252:

You can get banned from SA for just about anything. I fail to see how that can be used to support this article.

2115: 1481:

in that Mao appears to have sources, whereas The Game did not. A quick reading of the article shows a mention in

888: 828: 639: 541: 493: 85: 2658: 2476: 4209:

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

3480:

Of course they are. If they weren't playing, they wouldn't know the rules. But they do, therefore they were. --

2393: 296:

I was under the impression that whether or not we think a subject is childish or nonsensical doesn't matter. --

1908:

to be. Verifiability aside, it's not encyclopedic: a dict-def that's been inflated with delusions of grandeur.

1097:

I created savethegame.org to collect references to the game until the verifiability requirement is satisfied.

660:. AfD is not a vote. You know that, or should know that — you passed RfA, after all, and quite nicely, too. 629:

a voting procedure, it is an attempt to form consensus. Stating the number of votes is completely irrelevant.

3513: 2626: 2611: 2165: 2134: 1357: 1064: 694: 665: 287: 3335: 3114: 2385: 1463:

AFD is not a vote, and as such it does not matter what the raw numbers were. Had every single person voted

1177: 3444: 3122: 2347:

not, given the latter has references (including www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1504247 and those on

515:

As I understand it, this is a unique situation that should not be dismissed without considerable thought.

512:

c) The link to the specific Knowledge (XXG) article infers that it refered to The Game as described there.

3648: 2706:

of the game is not the issue, and has nothing to do with its deletion. It was deleted because it was not

2648:. Yes better sources would be nice, but The Game is phenomenally popular. I first heard about it through 2410: 2389: 1547: 617:

seems to think it should be), the third discussion analysed the topic under the strict interpretation of

3796:

While the goal of Knowledge (XXG) is to create a quality source of information, it is not the case that

3597: 3569: 3362:

Yes it's stupid and yes it's annoying (and quite possibly evil too), but that's no reason to delete it.

2923: 2874: 2814: 2666: 2576: 2101: 1971: 1812: 1054:

require reputable sources. However, let's think about the reputability of these sources: remember that

836: 708: 679: 647: 597: 375: 93: 3855:: Can we also have a standardized voting phrase? I don't know whether to put restore, undelete, etc. -- 3245:

lost the game", then the vast majority of the hits on the first few pages are relevent. Just noting. --

1314:

sources. However, looking at the SaveTheGame.org "reliable sources" list, this looks pretty close to a

784:

is definitely notable, in my eyes. Besides, I'm not a big fan of relisting every time something gets a

3343: 2977:

for that purpose. And the game did, after all, exist many years before the wikipedia article did. --

2245:. If the information was peer-reviewed by a journal or reputatble paper, then that would count under 881: 610: 486: 218: 159: 58: 4195: 4179: 4176: 4152: 4087: 4069: 4060: 4047: 4037: 4022: 3998: 3974: 3947: 3935: 3888: 3868: 3859: 3847: 3831: 3822: 3791: 3769: 3749: 3739: 3725: 3705: 3688: 3659: 3623: 3613: 3600: 3586: 3572: 3559: 3534: 3517: 3484: 3448: 3418: 3409: 3400: 3382: 3366: 3363: 3317: 3293: 3261: 3249: 3227: 3200: 3166: 3145: 3096: 3079: 3055: 3033: 3019: 2996: 2981: 2955: 2926: 2910: 2896: 2881: 2847: 2837: 2827: 2818: 2797: 2777: 2733: 2719: 2694: 2638: 2629: 2615: 2592: 2580: 2559: 2538: 2465: 2455: 2437: 2427: 2413: 2372: 2355: 2331: 2311: 2295: 2286: 2260: 2232: 2207: 2194: 2169: 2150: 2138: 2118: 2091: 2069: 2057: 2037: 2022: 2002: 1986: 1962: 1948: 1935: 1918: 1880: 1853: 1839: 1823:. I wouldn't go that far. =) I mean, I still wouldn't want to go to a blog for information on the 1815: 1797: 1787: 1754: 1744: 1735: 1725: 1707: 1687: 1674: 1648: 1591: 1571: 1552: 1521: 1423: 1410: 1383: 1363: 1346: 1336: 1296: 1277: 1258: 1227: 1207: 1164: 1143: 1111: 1101: 1092: 1071: 1038: 1010: 994: 963: 951: 939: 917: 892: 861: 840: 822: 809: 792: 772: 753: 733: 712: 698: 683: 669: 651: 633: 601: 573: 552: 519: 497: 471: 462: 447: 410: 394: 385: 362: 346: 330: 300: 291: 266: 263: 256: 247: 244: 237: 221: 97: 68: 3885: 3093: 3052: 2810: 2491:

references for articles which are bereft of them. Even when the article is not of interest to me. (

2340: 1505: 1501: 1482: 1241: 975:- The closing admin made a hard, and IMO correct, decision. This article clearly didn't conform to 832: 789: 704: 675: 643: 593: 371: 89: 3987: 3813:) are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." — 2066: 2034: 1794: 1684: 1318:

based on The Game: www.insertcredit.com/features/london2004/index.html insertcredit.com gaming con

253: 137: 129:

that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

3531: 3509: 3212: 3190: 2607: 2525:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMercedes_Lackey&diff=34806326&oldid=34777496

2161: 2130: 690: 661: 283: 29:

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

4102:

again . Whichever version is played, for the losers not all is lost: the moment that the Game...

2790: 2748: 2271: 2182: 208:

widespread, and not just confined to "small groups of college students" or a "schoolground fad".

3609:

discuss a somewhat similar situation and the points given in it might well be valuable here. --

2513:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Cefn_Mably_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=45838915

4149: 4057: 4033: 4015: 3995: 3932: 3765: 3653: 3439: 3313: 3118: 2992: 2689: 2493:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cefn_Mably_Hospital&diff=46184488&oldid=45813563

2328: 2279: 2225: 2190: 1667: 1329: 1201:. Instead the citations, once located, may serve as the basis of a future deletion review. -- 910: 323: 171: 3827:

David.Mestel makes an argument just below that' far better than anything I could would be. --

3810: 3506:

of a blog or forum post on a particular subject, that does not qualify as a reliable source.

2517:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Teacher%27s_diary&diff=prev&oldid=42357150

2050: 1941: 50: 4193: 3818: 3223: 3162:" isn't an argument, especially since the article is not unambiguously in violation of it. 3092:

Yes, I've read those. But this is verifiable. Plenty of sites mention it. That's the point.

2919: 2862: 2715: 2682: 2674: 2589: 2572: 2531:

I tried. I really did! On-line and off-line. That's why I believe the deletion was correct.

2144:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Game_%28game%29&action=edit&oldid=45700577

1959: 1588: 1566: 1517: 1403: 1291: 1274: 1185: 1030: 443: 234: 3960: 3928: 3911: 3806: 3676: 3548: 3544: 2935: 2238: 2084: 2053:

would be better; an RFC would only clarify the lack of community consensus on this issue.

1696: 1633: 1603: 1561: 1392: 1059: 1051: 932: 722: 622: 482: 3746: 3736: 3722: 3702: 3685: 3397: 3396:

we need to argue, nothing else. It was not deleted for being stupid, annoying, or evil. --

3339: 3327:

verifiability) it belongs in an encyclopedia of everything by its notability, even if it

3290: 3246: 3016: 2978: 2952: 2907: 2767: 2678: 2535: 2521:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurasian_Badger&diff=21567476&oldid=21130244

2509:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pentwyn_Dynamo_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=46029939

2365: 2352: 2344: 2054: 1915: 1901: 1618: 1509: 1497: 1478: 1457: 1068: 630: 503: 74: 3183: 2484: 2480: 2324: 2246: 2008: 1198: 1077: 981:

non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

54: 4092:

Really? What do you call trapdoor.be/the_game_article.jpg? It translates (roughly) as:

2497:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Teacher%27s_diary&diff=prev&oldid=42357122

1658:

I think the above provides some very good points. I further my Restore vote per above.--

1236: 381:

H2G2 is a source? Isn't that like quoting Knowledge (XXG) or Everything2 as a source?

3881: 3481: 2867: 2556: 2452: 1862: 1832: 750: 343: 80:

This article was deleted as unverifiable, after two older AfDs decided to keep it. But

3924: 3897: 3802: 3797: 3697: 3593: 3179: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3135: 3026: 2406: 1267: 1218: 1126: 1047: 976: 928: 718: 618: 562: 478: 107: 46: 4084: 3944: 3620: 3528: 3406: 3163: 3143: 3030: 2844: 2834: 2824: 2730: 2424: 2292: 2111: 1945: 1836: 1784: 1704: 1435:

ever became sourced, it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. The notability of

1420: 1343: 1255: 1141: 1085: 960: 936: 931:, I would probably vote Delete in an AfD. However, this is not an AfD. In light of 876: 854: 853:

Why? Is it unverifiable from reliable sources? If so, it should indeed be removed.

802: 726: 566: 407: 382: 390:

Fair enough… but that's a reason to delete Mao, not a reason to restore The Game. --

4029: 4007: 3784: 3761: 3643: 3583: 3556: 3527:

until criteria for includion in wikipedia are met: independent reputable source. `'

3309: 3197: 3073: 2988: 2794: 2686: 2670: 2505:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gavin_Henson&diff=prev&oldid=41597703

2275: 2217: 2204: 2186: 1932: 1905: 1897: 1893: 1850: 1659: 1377: 1321: 1108: 1098: 1007: 948: 902: 819: 549: 368:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A807068, www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A3532402

315: 3154:

is too strict in certain cases, and second is whether even the current version of

2943:

to become large enough for an article. The function of Knowledge (XXG) must be to

1197:

The article does not need to be restored for its supporters to locate and provide

4190: 3971: 3856: 3844: 3814: 3467: 3372: 3219: 2892: 2711: 2301: 2250: 2088: 2012: 1861:

Seems like an obvious case to me, especially given the verifiability problems.

1824: 1751: 1741: 1732: 1722: 1645: 1584: 1544: 1513: 1397: 1286: 1271: 1266:. I don't care how many legions of "voters" show up - if they don't believe in 1223: 1203: 1181: 1019: 984: 769: 538: 516: 468: 459: 455: 439: 391: 359: 230: 2343:

remain with only references to comments made on an external tech news site and

613:. While the first couple seem to have been assessed as a trivial vote (the way 4066: 4044: 3990:

that the number of unique reults is actually the number of distinct web pages

3865: 3843:

per EVERYTHING, especially the comment above about restricting information! --

3828: 3788: 3610: 3415: 3258: 2752: 2662: 2635: 2532: 2462: 2434: 2237:

Well, it doesn't have to be a scientific journal, but yes that's exactly what

2147: 1911: 1896:

article, which i had imagined was a real phenomenon not worthy of an article.

1474: 1161: 815: 297: 81: 2083:. Legitimate and well-thought-out reading of consensus. We can't vote down 1371:, unverifiable. At such time as someone publishes a real description of this 703:

You're correct. Deletion debates should err in favor of keeping the article.

544:

which have both had AfDs and the similar precedent of everyone agreeing that

2033:

article that further debate is needed and that DRV is not the place for it.

1995: 1828: 1717: 1406: 746: 614: 339: 2501:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Norval_Marley&oldid=28250853

1888:. I went and looked at the deleted text, bcz i had just discovered that we 1683:

that I lost and see if anyone responds? Both of those are tenous at best.

3943:. This is exactly the argument I've been trying to present. Well said. 1982: 1160:, though, I cannot justify maintaining the article against WP:V concerns. 625:, and was found wanting. (For the record, Mao looks just as crap.) AfD is 65:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman

3552: 3139: 2654: 2604:

The Answers.com article is just an old mirror of the deleted WP article.

2249:

and I, amoung others, would support the (re-)creation of this article. --

2107: 1443:

of its content. We are not in the business of providing primary sources:

1137: 3158:

actually allows this sort of article. Simply saying "we can't overturn

3760:

opinion, to decide an issue without corroboration from other sources.

3641:, the AfD wasn't out of process, whether it's notable enough or not. -- 3578: 3565: 4083:

Admin was correct to close it as delete, because it's unverifiable. --

2634:

As has been mentioned repeatedly, notability is not the issue here. --

1467:

and an anonymous editor came by in the last seconds with a mention in

4131:

the Game as often as possible, without being reminded of it yourself.

3110:

per Ashibaka. Also, AfD discussion showed a clear "keep" consensus.

200:

Also note: although not verifiable per Knowledge (XXG) standards, it

191:

www.savethegame.org SaveTheGame.org which now has quite a listing of

1695:

I believe the "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" clause in

184:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination)

3994:. Indeed, "Microsoft" only returns around 500 "unique results". -- 4006:

Verfiable and reliable SOURCE FOUND. See talk page for The Game.--

4203:

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

3150:

There are a couple of arguments at work here. First is whether

2649: 1928: 1489:

article, and because I haven't spent enough time thinking about

3745:

little bit is certainly reasonable; the question is, how much?

2527:

example.) I tried to do that this time. And along with Seqsea,

831:

to Deletion Review rather than AfD it would have been deleted.

1302:

Comment: The Game is clearly verifiable, it just doesn't have

545: 84:

is also unverifiable and it is clearly encyclopedic. I put up

3134:

That matters not. AfD (nor DRV) cannot overturn policy, and

1849:. I was on the fence for a while, but Kernow convinced me. -- 3783:. Here's something I found from the third deletion page, by 172:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Game_%28game%29/VfD_Archive

2939:

if it's spectacularly non-notable or if it's been created

2529:

I couldn't, and still can't, find references to this Game.

689:

shouldn't be closing AfDs. The reverse applies as well.

3498:

In your second example, you are referring to the actual

2274:

is "don't make external websites to disrupt wikipedia."

2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2143: 450: 125:

on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is

64: 4148:

If that's not verification, I don't know what is. --

204:

quite easily verifiable (see above) that The Game is

178:

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

3896:: Firstly, on the process of ending the AfD. While 3432:: Seems clear to me that the result of the AFD was 3414:

And the other way around, to be fair (and anal). --

4065:Yeah, sorry about flying off the handle a bit. -- 2661:. As you can see it is already more popular than 356:www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A638426 Sources. 227:Proof of the existence of The Game is undeniable. 4213:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4121:game, is playing it - so there's no escaping it. 3801:itself puts it succinctly: "The three policies ( 1460:took that into account when making his decision. 354:. You know what Mao has that The Game doesn't? 1439:article has very little to do at all with the 35:No further edits should be made to this page. 1564:an indiscriminate collection of information. 1395:an indiscrimnate collection of information. - 8: 3713:You're missing the point of my comment. We 3460:the existence of the game — it is an actual 1391:if for nothing else then Knowledge (XXG) is 656:I never thought I'd say this, Ashibaka, but 1375:in a reliable source, it can come back. -- 818:that is we are discussing, not Mao Zedong. 483:the game you played when you were at school 1900:is a decent article, and should be kept. 3371:That wasn't the reason it was deleted. -- 2146:are we talking about the same article? -- 2087:, no matter how many people think so. -- 1940:Sounds reasonable to me, except for the 1076:Hey, guess what? Not one of those is a 609:The three AfD discussions are linked on 3555:, which I don't see anyone deleting. -- 3502:of the blogs and such. It is this, the 3466:Let us say that somebody writes on the 1970:per above. It's an unverifiable mess. 1712:That clause pretty clearly applies to 607:Die, stay dead and dance on its grave. 3667:Might I suggest: a google web search 3001:I'm not necessarily trying to change 2729:per the many arguments stated above. 415:This comment was the primary reason: 7: 3069:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 1058:is only a guideline; in the end, as 154:Relevent information for discussion: 3577:Whatever. My statement concerning 1504:brought it here. As far as I know, 2349:User:Stephen_Deken/The_Game_(game) 565:? Is that no longer firm policy? 24: 2049:this is a good idea, but perhaps 1981: 1445:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources 1405: 1056:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources 423:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources 370:Will you reverse your vote now? 106: 3496:coming from the website itself. 827:I have a feeling if I had sent 142:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3547:and have the article remain. 2409:is very clear on the subject. 1904:is as worthless as i expected 1215:Endorse closure (keep deleted) 537:Per similar precedents set by 1: 4081:Endorse closure, keep deleted 3864:I believe it's "overturn". -- 3568:is not being discussed here. 3257:per Kernow and Adam Field. -- 3065:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 3049:Overturn deletion and restore 1581:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1192:) 17:15, March 27, 2006 (UTC) 2477:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars 1583:trumps vague hand-waving. -- 174:VfD Archive (September 2004) 1577:Endorse close, keep deleted 1529:Endorse close, keep deleted 4230: 4196:21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4180:20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4153:20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4088:17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4070:22:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4061:20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4048:18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4038:18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 4023:17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 3999:06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 3975:13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 3948:12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 3936:06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 3832:15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 3564:Irrelevent. The status of 2848:16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2838:16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2828:16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2819:15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2798:14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2778:14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2734:11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2720:16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2695:09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2630:08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2616:08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2593:06:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2581:04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2560:20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2539:17:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2456:16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2428:16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2414:10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2373:22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2356:18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2332:17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2312:16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2296:15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2287:15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2261:15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2233:13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2208:03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2195:23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2139:22:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2119:22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2092:22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2070:19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2058:13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 2038:20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2023:19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2003:19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1987:19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1963:18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1949:18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1936:18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1919:15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1881:14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1854:11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1840:14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1816:11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1798:20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1788:19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1755:12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 1745:00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 1736:21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1726:19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1708:18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1688:17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1675:15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1649:11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1592:01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1572:00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1553:00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1522:23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1424:21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1411:21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1384:20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1364:20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1356:for now, as unverifiable. 1347:19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1337:19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1297:19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1278:18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1259:18:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1247:18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1228:17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1208:17:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1165:16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1144:16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1112:21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1102:21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1093:21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1072:16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1039:16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1011:16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 995:15:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 964:15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 952:15:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 940:14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 918:16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 893:14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 862:08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 841:14:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 823:14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 810:14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 793:14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 773:14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 754:14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 734:14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 713:15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 699:14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 684:14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 670:14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 652:14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 634:14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 602:13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 574:08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 553:13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 520:11:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 498:11:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 472:11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 463:14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 448:00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 411:13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 395:13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 386:13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 363:13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 347:13:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 331:13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 292:13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 267:14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 257:20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 248:14:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 238:01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 222:21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 98:13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 69:00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 3992:among the first 1000 hits 3889:14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3869:01:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3860:00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3848:00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3823:01:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3792:09:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 3770:19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3750:20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3740:18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3726:17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3706:16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3689:15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 3660:07:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3624:19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3614:15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3601:13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3587:09:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3573:08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3560:06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3535:20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3518:22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3485:17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3449:07:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3419:08:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3410:02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3401:23:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3383:23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3367:22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3318:20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3294:18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3262:12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3250:18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3228:03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3201:15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 3167:19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3146:00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 3097:01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 3080:02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 3056:01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 3034:02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 3020:02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 2997:19:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 2982:19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 2956:10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 2927:04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 2911:00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 2897:17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 2882:07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 2639:12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 2475:. The very first item in 2466:12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 2438:12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 2170:20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 2151:12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 979:which states that it is " 301:11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 45:review the guidelines on 4206:Please do not modify it. 2270:An obvious coorelary to 32:Please do not modify it. 1065:Category:Internet memes 138:policies and guidelines 2653:do now. The Cambridge 1531:. Let's remember that 829:Encyclopædia Dramatica 640:Encyclopædia Dramatica 542:Encyclopædia Dramatica 144:for more information. 86:Encyclopædia Dramatica 55:reliability of sources 2947:these things, not to 2934:This is part of what 2727:Endorse, Keep Deleted 2667:Red Hot Chili Peppers 2623:Weak endorse deletion 2586:Endorse reinstatement 2099:Overturn and undelete 1537:Neutral point of view 884:(formerly Malthusian) 611:Talk: The Game (game) 489:(formerly Malthusian) 2481:no original research 2241:suggests. To quote, 2007:Just none that pass 1597:Overturn and Restore 1541:No original research 1500:closed the AFD, and 1000:Overturn and Restore 3730:A Google search is 3671:could be used as a 3596:, it even says so. 2963:. Actually, yes. I 2659:here's a screenshot 2646:Restore and improve 2341:Slashdot subculture 1714:firsthand knowledge 1483:Scientific American 1233:Restore and improve 1125:. You can't trump 814:See above, this is 587:28 Keep - 16 Delete 3442: 2627:Stephen B Streater 1469:The New York Times 1358:Christopher Parham 901:on the internet.-- 4036: 3768: 3682: 3478:playing the game. 3447: 3440: 3352: 3338:comment added by 3316: 3208:. The purpose of 3131: 3117:comment added by 2995: 2916:Overturn deletion 2904:Overturn deletion 2859:Overturn deletion 2817: 2776: 2402: 2388:comment added by 2321:Overturn Deletion 2283: 2200:Overturn Deletion 2193: 1979: 1569: 1560:as per above and 1295: 1194: 1180:comment added by 891: 885: 839: 711: 682: 650: 600: 496: 490: 378: 209: 149: 148: 96: 4221: 4208: 4032: 4020: 4012: 3764: 3680: 3651: 3639:Endorse deletion 3437: 3351: 3332: 3312: 3306:reliable sources 3267:One more comment 3235:One more comment 3217: 3211: 3195: 3189: 3130: 3111: 3076: 2991: 2880: 2877: 2813: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2766: 2765: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2692: 2683:North of England 2681:and in fact the 2675:Scrubs (TV show) 2569:Endorse deletion 2553:Endorse Deletion 2485:reliable sources 2473:Endorse deletion 2401: 2382: 2370: 2281: 2230: 2222: 2189: 2104: 2081:Endorse deletion 2000: 1985: 1977: 1974: 1958:as per Kernow. - 1944:violation. =) 1878: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1672: 1664: 1565: 1558:Endorse deletion 1550: 1429:Endorse Deletion 1416:Endorse Deletion 1409: 1400: 1389:Endorse Deletion 1380: 1334: 1326: 1289: 1199:reliable sources 1193: 1174: 1089: 1084:not acceptable. 1036: 1033: 1026: 1023: 915: 907: 887: 883: 873:Endorse deletion 858: 835: 806: 730: 707: 678: 646: 596: 570: 492: 488: 427:WP:Verifiability 374: 352:Endorse deletion 328: 320: 199: 161:The Game (game)' 110: 103: 102: 92: 67: 61: 34: 4229: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4211:deletion review 4204: 4016: 4008: 3649: 3380: 3333: 3215: 3209: 3193: 3187: 3112: 3074: 2875: 2872: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2761: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2690: 2679:Homestar Runner 2383: 2366: 2345:The Game (game) 2309: 2258: 2226: 2218: 2179:Endorse closure 2102: 2020: 1996: 1972: 1902:The Game (game) 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1668: 1660: 1619:Primary sources 1548: 1510:User:Sean Black 1498:User:Sean Black 1479:The Game (game) 1458:User:Sean Black 1398: 1378: 1330: 1322: 1244: 1175: 1087: 1078:reliable source 1034: 1031: 1024: 1021: 992: 911: 903: 856: 804: 728: 721:and hence also 590: 589: 568: 504:Primary sources 324: 316: 211: 180:(November 2005) 150: 119: 78: 75:The Game (game) 63: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4227: 4225: 4216: 4215: 4199: 4198: 4183: 4182: 4171: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4156: 4155: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4050: 4001: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3965: 3964: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3941:+1, Insightful 3916: 3906: 3905: 3891: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3675:source. From 3662: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3537: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3497: 3479: 3472: 3465: 3454:Strong restore 3451: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3392:have. That is 3385: 3376: 3360:Bring it back. 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3303: 3264: 3252: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3094:Sasha Slutsker 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3053:Sasha Slutsker 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2929: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2781: 2780: 2736: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2595: 2583: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2542: 2541: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2411:193.122.31.188 2390:130.194.13.102 2379:Strong Restore 2376: 2358: 2334: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2305: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2254: 2210: 2197: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2157: 2121: 2094: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2041: 2040: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2016: 1989: 1965: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1922: 1921: 1909: 1883: 1863:Andrew Lenahan 1856: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1833:Mack the Knife 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1703:to play..." ? 1652: 1651: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1610: 1594: 1574: 1555: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1494: 1472: 1461: 1453: 1449: 1426: 1413: 1386: 1366: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1299: 1280: 1261: 1249: 1240: 1230: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1167: 1146: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1041: 1013: 997: 988: 973:Strong Endorse 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 922: 921: 920: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 846: 845: 844: 843: 825: 795: 775: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 604: 591: 585: 584: 583: 579: 578: 577: 576: 556: 555: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 513: 510: 507: 453: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 379: 349: 333: 314:phenomenon. -- 305: 304: 303: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 197: 196: 189: 188: 187: 181: 175: 166: 151: 147: 146: 115: 113: 111: 101: 77: 72: 38: 37: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4226: 4214: 4212: 4207: 4201: 4200: 4197: 4194: 4192: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4178: 4173: 4172: 4167: 4166: 4161: 4158: 4157: 4154: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4079: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4049: 4046: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4019: 4013: 4011: 4005: 4002: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3981: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3955: 3954: 3949: 3946: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3913: 3908: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3876: 3870: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3858: 3854: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3842: 3839: 3833: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3779: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3755: 3751: 3748: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3738: 3733: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3715:usually don't 3712: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3687: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3640: 3637: 3625: 3622: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3598:212.13.213.48 3595: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3585: 3580: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3571: 3570:212.13.213.48 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3541: 3538: 3536: 3533: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3511: 3505: 3501: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3477: 3469: 3463: 3462:instantiation 3459: 3455: 3452: 3450: 3446: 3445: 3443: 3435: 3431: 3428: 3420: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3386: 3384: 3379: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3330: 3325: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3287: 3282: 3277: 3272: 3268: 3265: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3214: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3192: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3168: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3098: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3081: 3078: 3077: 3075:Donald Albury 3070: 3066: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3047: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3018: 3014: 3009: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2937: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2878: 2871: 2870: 2866: 2865: 2860: 2857: 2849: 2846: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2836: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2805: 2804: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2764: 2760: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2740: 2737: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2609: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2571:as per Mark. 2570: 2567: 2566: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2380: 2377: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2362: 2361:Endorse close 2359: 2357: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2339:- why should 2338: 2335: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2319: 2313: 2308: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2223: 2221: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2125: 2124:Keep deleted. 2122: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1999: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1813:Feelingscarfy 1810: 1807: 1799: 1796: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1756: 1753: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1671: 1665: 1663: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1563: 1559: 1556: 1554: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1535:, along with 1534: 1533:Verifiability 1530: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506:User:Ashibaka 1503: 1502:User:Ashibaka 1499: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477:differs from 1476: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441:verifiability 1438: 1433: 1432: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1422: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1402: 1401: 1394: 1390: 1387: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1379:Donald Albury 1374: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1333: 1327: 1325: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1306:articles and 1305: 1300: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1171: 1168: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1113: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1037: 1028: 1027: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1001: 998: 996: 991: 986: 982: 978: 974: 971: 965: 962: 958: 955: 954: 953: 950: 946: 943: 942: 941: 938: 934: 930: 926: 923: 919: 916: 914: 908: 906: 900: 896: 895: 894: 890: 886: 882:Sam Blanning 878: 877:freak dancing 874: 871: 870: 863: 860: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 824: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 808: 799: 796: 794: 791: 790:Andy Saunders 787: 783: 779: 776: 774: 771: 766: 763: 755: 752: 748: 743: 735: 732: 724: 720: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 636: 635: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 605: 603: 599: 595: 588: 581: 580: 575: 572: 564: 560: 559: 558: 557: 554: 551: 547: 543: 540: 536: 533: 521: 518: 514: 511: 508: 505: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 487:Sam Blanning 484: 480: 475: 474: 473: 470: 466: 465: 464: 461: 457: 454: 452: 449: 445: 441: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 417: 416: 414: 413: 412: 409: 405: 402: 396: 393: 389: 388: 387: 384: 380: 377: 373: 369: 366: 365: 364: 361: 357: 353: 350: 348: 345: 341: 337: 334: 332: 329: 327: 321: 319: 313: 309: 306: 302: 299: 295: 294: 293: 289: 285: 281: 278: 268: 265: 260: 259: 258: 255: 251: 250: 249: 246: 241: 240: 239: 236: 232: 228: 225: 224: 223: 220: 216: 213: 212: 210: 207: 203: 194: 190: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 169: 167: 164: 162: 158: 157: 156: 155: 145: 143: 139: 134: 130: 128: 124: 118: 114: 112: 109: 105: 104: 100: 99: 95: 91: 87: 83: 76: 73: 71: 70: 66: 62: 56: 52: 48: 44: 36: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4205: 4202: 4186: 4159: 4150:David.Mestel 4080: 4058:David.Mestel 4053: 4017: 4009: 4003: 3996:David.Mestel 3991: 3983: 3956: 3940: 3933:David.Mestel 3920: 3901: 3893: 3878:Keep deleted 3877: 3852: 3840: 3780: 3731: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3693: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3654: 3644: 3642: 3638: 3606: 3539: 3525:Keep deleted 3524: 3508: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3493: 3489: 3475: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3441:Metta Bubble 3438: 3434:no consensus 3433: 3429: 3393: 3389: 3359: 3334:— Preceding 3328: 3323: 3299: 3285: 3280: 3275: 3270: 3266: 3254: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3205: 3175: 3138:is policy. 3119:Frenchman113 3113:— Preceding 3107: 3072: 3063:Please read 3060: 3048: 3012: 3007: 3002: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2960: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2931: 2918:per Adam. -- 2915: 2903: 2891: 2886: 2868: 2863: 2858: 2806: 2793:issue here. 2786: 2762: 2742: 2739:Keep deleted 2738: 2726: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2671:Led Zeppelin 2645: 2622: 2606: 2605: 2597: 2585: 2568: 2552: 2547: 2528: 2523:example and 2488: 2472: 2448: 2445:Keep Deleted 2444: 2421:Keep Deleted 2420: 2384:— Preceding 2378: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2336: 2329:David.Mestel 2320: 2268:Keep Deleted 2267: 2242: 2227: 2219: 2212: 2199: 2178: 2160: 2159: 2129: 2128: 2123: 2098: 2080: 2062: 2046: 2029: 1997: 1991: 1973:RasputinAXP 1968:Keep Deleted 1967: 1955: 1924: 1906:Nose picking 1898:Nose picking 1894:Nose picking 1889: 1886:Keep deleted 1885: 1866: 1859:Keep deleted 1858: 1846: 1820: 1808: 1779: 1713: 1700: 1692: 1679: 1669: 1661: 1655: 1596: 1576: 1557: 1528: 1512:'s puppet. — 1490: 1486: 1468: 1464: 1440: 1436: 1428: 1415: 1396: 1388: 1376: 1372: 1369:Keep deleted 1368: 1354:Keep deleted 1353: 1331: 1323: 1315: 1311: 1310:reports, or 1307: 1303: 1301: 1283:Keep deleted 1282: 1264:Keep deleted 1263: 1252:Keep deleted 1251: 1239: 1232: 1222: 1214: 1202: 1176:— Preceding 1169: 1157: 1153: 1149:Keep deleted 1148: 1131: 1130: 1123:Keep deleted 1122: 1081: 1043: 1020: 1015: 1003: 999: 980: 972: 956: 944: 924: 912: 904: 898: 872: 797: 785: 781: 777: 764: 657: 626: 606: 586: 561:And what of 534: 434: 430: 418: 403: 367: 355: 351: 335: 325: 317: 311: 307: 279: 226: 214: 205: 201: 198: 192: 186:(March 2006) 160: 153: 152: 135: 131: 126: 122: 120: 116: 79: 47:verification 42: 39: 31: 28: 3468:LiveJournal 3322:Because it 2920:Goobergunch 2864:Matt Yeager 2590:brabblebrex 2573:Sarah Ewart 1960:Mister Five 1825:Reformation 1567:Pegasus1138 899:secondarily 539:Sapiosexual 456:User:Seqsea 163:s Talk page 3747:Mangojuice 3737:Kinitawowi 3723:Mangojuice 3703:Kinitawowi 3686:Mangojuice 3398:Adam Field 3340:Adam Field 3291:Adam Field 3247:Adam Field 3017:Adam Field 2979:Adam Field 2953:Kinitawowi 2908:Adam Field 2744:verifiable 2708:verifiable 2704:popularity 2663:Pink Floyd 2368:Encephalon 2353:MilkMiruku 2055:Mangojuice 1475:Mao (game) 1154:very close 1107:behavior. 1082:absolutely 1069:Mangojuice 816:Mao (game) 780:deletion. 695:fuddle me! 691:fuddlemark 666:fuddle me! 662:fuddlemark 631:Kinitawowi 433:exist and 288:fuddle me! 284:fuddlemark 280:Let it die 229:Uh, no. -- 219:Kinkoblast 123:not a vote 117:ATTENTION! 82:Mao (game) 4177:Harmonica 4169:instance. 3988:WP:GOOGLE 3921:principle 3882:Johnleemk 3719:in itself 3553:ORLY? Owl 3482:Spudtater 3364:MC Hammer 3281:jackassey 3213:unsourced 3191:unsourced 2557:Mushrambo 2519:example, 2515:example, 2511:example, 2507:example, 2503:example, 2499:example, 2495:Example, 2453:Mushrambo 1829:Astrology 1718:Apple pie 1496:Finally, 1312:reputable 1308:newspaper 1090:you know? 1086:Just zis 859:you know? 855:Just zis 807:you know? 803:Just zis 731:you know? 727:Just zis 615:User:Dbiv 571:you know? 567:Just zis 264:Casiotone 245:Casiotone 60:brenneman 43:carefully 4160:Comment: 4141:origins. 4085:kingboyk 4010:Alfakim 4004:Comment: 3711:Response 3510:Warpstar 3476:actually 3348:contribs 3336:unsigned 3289:still.-- 3255:Overturn 3140:User:Zoe 3127:contribs 3115:unsigned 3108:Undelete 3013:everyone 2945:document 2887:Comment: 2845:Syrthiss 2825:Syrthiss 2811:Ashibaka 2791:WP:POINT 2749:WP:POINT 2731:Eusebeus 2655:facebook 2608:Warpstar 2425:Hahnchen 2398:contribs 2386:unsigned 2272:WP:POINT 2220:Alfakim 2213:Comment: 2183:civility 2162:Warpstar 2131:Warpstar 2030:Overturn 1992:Undelete 1785:Ziggurat 1662:Alfakim 1656:Comment: 1421:Ziggurat 1344:Lord Bob 1324:Alfakim 1304:magazine 1256:Lord Bob 1237:nae'blis 1190:contribs 1178:unsigned 1138:User:Zoe 1044:Overturn 1016:Overturn 925:Overturn 905:Alfakim 833:Ashibaka 782:The Game 778:Overturn 705:Ashibaka 676:Ashibaka 644:Ashibaka 594:Ashibaka 535:Undelete 502:a) From 372:Ashibaka 318:Alfakim 215:Recreate 127:not true 90:Ashibaka 4187:Restore 4030:Rossami 3984:Comment 3959:: From 3957:Comment 3927:) like 3894:Comment 3853:Comment 3841:Restore 3811:WP:NPOV 3785:AceMyth 3781:Comment 3762:Rossami 3732:exactly 3694:Comment 3673:primary 3665:Comment 3584:Anaraug 3557:Anaraug 3540:Restore 3504:content 3500:content 3494:website 3490:Comment 3458:stating 3430:Restore 3378:Contrib 3310:Rossami 3276:primary 3206:Comment 3198:Hawkian 3176:Comment 3061:Comment 2989:Rossami 2975:created 2961:Comment 2949:promote 2932:Comment 2807:Comment 2795:JoshuaZ 2787:Comment 2700:Comment 2687:the wub 2598:Restore 2548:Comment 2489:finding 2337:Restore 2307:Contrib 2276:Hpuppet 2256:Contrib 2205:Darquis 2187:Rossami 2067:kotepho 2063:Comment 2051:WP:RFAR 2047:Comment 2035:kotepho 2018:Contrib 1956:Restore 1942:WP:SELF 1933:Hawkian 1925:Comment 1892:have a 1851:Ashenai 1847:Restore 1821:Comment 1809:Restore 1795:kotepho 1780:Comment 1685:kotepho 1680:Comment 1636:again: 1508:is not 1170:Restore 1158:For now 1129:. And 1109:JoshuaZ 1099:Bkkbrad 1008:Hawkian 990:Contrib 949:JoshuaZ 945:Comment 820:JoshuaZ 798:Endorse 765:Endorse 658:grow up 550:JoshuaZ 404:Comment 336:Comment 308:Restore 254:kotepho 193:sources 4191:DS1953 4163:place. 4054:Nature 4034:(talk) 3972:Kernow 3961:WP:NOR 3945:Powers 3929:WP:NOR 3912:WP:NOR 3902:extent 3857:Liface 3845:Liface 3815:Seqsea 3809:, and 3807:WP:NOR 3766:(talk) 3677:WP:NOR 3669:itself 3621:Powers 3579:O RLY? 3566:O RLY? 3549:WP:NOT 3545:WP:IAR 3464:of it. 3407:Powers 3373:JiFish 3314:(talk) 3300:should 3220:Seqsea 3164:Powers 3031:Powers 2993:(talk) 2951:them. 2941:solely 2936:WP:NOR 2893:Allen3 2835:Powers 2712:Seqsea 2702:. The 2665:, the 2536:(talk) 2302:JiFish 2293:Powers 2251:JiFish 2239:WP:NOR 2191:(talk) 2089:SCZenz 2085:WP:NOR 2013:JiFish 1946:Powers 1837:Powers 1752:Kernow 1733:Kernow 1716:only. 1705:Powers 1697:WP:NOR 1646:Kernow 1634:WP:NOR 1604:WP:NOR 1585:Calton 1562:WP:NOT 1514:Seqsea 1465:delete 1448:found. 1393:WP:NOT 1361:(talk) 1316:report 1287:Fuzzie 1275:(talk) 1272:Friday 1242:(talk) 1224:Allen3 1204:Allen3 1182:Dbmag9 1060:WP:NOR 1052:WP:NOR 985:JiFish 961:Powers 937:Powers 933:WP:IAR 889:(talk) 788:vote. 770:Stifle 723:WP:NOR 642:then. 623:WP:NOR 517:Kernow 494:(talk) 469:Kernow 440:Seqsea 419:Delete 408:Powers 383:Powers 231:Calton 168:AfD's 53:, and 4067:Kizor 4045:Kizor 4018:talk 3866:Kizor 3829:Kizor 3789:Kizor 3611:Kizor 3529:mikka 3514:Rider 3471:used. 3416:Kizor 3259:Kizor 3184:WP:RS 2876:Talk? 2756:Proto 2636:Kizor 2612:Rider 2533:Telsa 2463:Kizor 2435:Kizor 2325:WP:RS 2247:WP:RS 2228:talk 2166:Rider 2148:Kizor 2135:Rider 2009:WP:RS 1998:Grue 1912:Jerzy 1831:, or 1701:claim 1693:Reply 1670:talk 1632:From 1617:From 1602:From 1570:---- 1332:talk 1221:). -- 1173:game. 1162:Xoloz 1032:ɹəəds 1025:speer 957:Reply 913:talk 747:David 340:David 326:talk 298:Kizor 16:< 4056:? -- 3925:WP:V 3898:WP:V 3886:Talk 3819:talk 3803:WP:V 3798:WP:V 3698:WP:V 3645:Rory 3607:does 3594:WP:V 3390:does 3344:talk 3308:.) 3271:more 3243:just 3239:lose 3224:talk 3180:WP:V 3160:WP:V 3156:WP:V 3152:WP:V 3136:WP:V 3123:talk 3067:and 3027:WP:V 3008:body 3003:your 2815:tock 2771:type 2716:talk 2691:"?!" 2650:b3ta 2577:Talk 2407:WP:V 2394:talk 2327:. -- 2282:Talk 2011:. -- 1929:meme 1589:Talk 1545:Tito 1539:and 1518:talk 1491:that 1487:this 1373:meme 1292:talk 1268:WP:V 1219:WP:V 1186:talk 1132:none 1127:WP:V 1050:and 1048:WP:V 1004:real 977:WP:V 929:WP:V 837:tock 786:Keep 751:Talk 719:WP:V 709:tock 680:tock 648:tock 621:and 619:WP:V 598:tock 563:WP:V 479:WP:V 444:talk 431:does 376:tock 344:Talk 312:real 235:Talk 206:very 94:tock 57:. - 51:bias 4014:-- 3923:of 3532:(t) 3394:all 3286:our 3182:or 2970:was 2224:-- 2185:. 2108:Lar 1874:bli 1742:phh 1723:phh 1666:-- 1437:our 1328:-- 1088:Guy 909:-- 857:Guy 805:Guy 729:Guy 627:NOT 569:Guy 546:Mao 460:phh 392:phh 360:phh 322:-- 4043:-- 3884:| 3821:) 3805:, 3679:: 3655:96 3381:) 3375:(/ 3350:) 3346:• 3329:is 3324:is 3226:) 3216:}} 3210:{{ 3196:? 3194:}} 3188:{{ 3129:) 3125:• 2965:do 2843:-- 2763:|| 2751:. 2718:) 2677:, 2673:, 2669:, 2579:) 2555:. 2461:-- 2449:un 2433:-- 2400:) 2396:• 2310:) 2304:(/ 2278:- 2259:) 2253:(/ 2110:: 2021:) 2015:(/ 1910:-- 1890:do 1877:nd 1871:ar 1868:St 1865:- 1827:, 1621:: 1606:: 1599:. 1587:| 1579:. 1549:xd 1520:) 1431:: 1320:-- 1188:• 1035:ɹ 1029:/ 993:) 987:(/ 880:-- 749:| 697:) 668:) 446:) 435:is 358:-- 342:| 290:) 262:-- 233:| 202:is 49:, 3963:: 3817:( 3650:0 3342:( 3222:( 3142:| 3121:( 2924:? 2922:| 2879:) 2873:( 2869:♫ 2714:( 2575:( 2392:( 2284:» 2280:« 2116:c 2114:/ 2112:t 2106:+ 2103:+ 1978:c 1916:t 1914:• 1516:( 1399:M 1294:) 1290:( 1184:( 1140:| 1022:r 693:( 664:( 442:( 438:— 286:( 195:. 165:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/The Game (game) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index