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

3722:: Although this probably isn't the right place to offer my opinion, some people should bear the following in mind: If this article gets deleted, it will get recreated. Some seem to believe that these discussions are riddled with sockpuppets, but that is not the case. Hundreds of thousands of people play The Game. The number of players is growing all the time. The number of people using Knowledge (XXG) is growing all the time. More and more people will visit Knowledge (XXG) to read about The Game. In fact, most people will come to Knowledge (XXG) to add The Game article, they will not expect it to already exist because most people are told about The Game in person, rather than over the net. Because of The Game's name, it will not necessarily be added as "The Game (game)". We have already seen someone add it as "Lost (game)", assumably unaware that this "The Game (game)" article already existed. To the people that hope that deleting this article will make The Game disappear from Knowledge (XXG), it won't. It is completely understandable why you think of this game as stupid and annoying, but people play it regardless. All of this is, of course, my opinion and irrelevant to the verifiabilty of this article. I'm just saying, don't let The Game annoy you too much, because it's not going to go away any time soon. 1562:. The purpose of "votes" like this one is to provide people with a forum for airing a range of opinions and arguments; in the end, it is the best argument that "wins," not the one with the most votes. That the newspaper article was raised in the final days of the review doesn't matter: if it's a good enough exhibit to carry the day, it should carry the day even if nobody sees it but the closing admin. Well, it didn't carry the day--Aaron considered it, decided it didn't bring the article to an acceptable level of verifiability, and kept it deleted. If Ashibaka disagreed with that assessment, the proper course of action would have been to relist the article here, state his belief that Aaron didn't give proper consideration to a new piece of information, and ask for another review. Instead, he went cowboy, decided that 1949:- I can't believe there's been this much chatter about this absolutely inane topic. I've never, ever, ever heard of this in my life before I saw it on here, and in the circles I run in, internet trends and silliness like this would have been brought up at some point. The Belgian newspaper article is useless, if the translation I saw is a good indication - it has no references, no quotes, no nothing but the conjecture of some reporter (and being a reporter, I know that means virtually nothing to notability, especially in an opinion piece - and very especially with absolutely no sources mentioned). It's a dead end of an article, and the fact that people want to use it as verification is scary. Make the insanity stop, and let this die. 4344:- This whole discussion is rediculous, not only do i support putting just about anything on Knowledge (XXG), if i had to start censoring what gets put on and what gets taken off, this would be one of the strongest keeps. The reason wikipedia is better that conventional encyclopedias is that it addapts quickly. An emerging (and some evidence says The Game has been around around a while) social trend, movement, or fashion may not make other encyclopedias by press date, but here on WP we can write up an article as it happens. All my sources indicate that knowledge of The Game is growing, therefore i see it as part of fulfillment of Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose to restore the article in it's entirety. 5289:

acceptable to take a contested speedy to AfD, which is what happened here. Third, as far as I can tell (and I've reread all the relevant guidelines and policies again to make sure), a no consensus defaulting to keep if fundamentally identical to a keep for all policy purposes in an AfD excepting that the closing admin has more leeway about deleting or keeping it. Prodego put time into considering his decision and explained it in in his closing why he decided as he did. If you think such AfDs should not count as passing, that's a policy issue that should be taken up as a policy discussion, not something that should be decided by an ad hoc deletion review.

3782:. This issue is a mess, and the only other thing I'd like to say is that if the article is kept after this mess, per WP policy the article needs to be stripped down to only what the verifiable sources say about it. The article sites one questionable source and mentions another source. Someone needs to get access to both, and any other additional information needs to have another source. If nothing better than blog posts and geocities pages can be found for a bit of information, that information can't be included. Otherwise I could go create a wepage for myGame 2723:, which is why it's such a problem when the status quo doesn't immediately get restored after some admin goes cowboy--it creates a new, invalid precedent and the burden of proof shifts to those defending the prior status quo. The article should not now exist, and this deletion review should properly be about whether the article should be reinstated in light of the Belgian newspaper article, which apparently has taken on the status of a papal encyclical in the eyes of some. Instead, everything's gone topsy-turvy with no easy way to unfuck it. -- 1542:

majority of votes were made without any knowledge of the new source. Basically the closure of the DRV amounts to one admin dictating that the newspaper is not a reliable source. This is exactly the same problem that Zoe's deletion runs into. We do not make decisions based on one admin's view; we work on consensus. Processes are in place to rule on if something is valid within our policies. Those processes should be followed except in the cases where consensus has decided they are exempt from process (CSDs).

1266:. While this "mindless trivia" is neither mindless, nor trivia (at least in the perjorative sense), and is completely at home on Knowledge (XXG), I definitely agree that it is unnecessary and unhelpful to bandy around accusations of vendettas. I for one cannot think of any possible reason for a "vendetta". Sure, some people might well be voting against the article because they dont like The Game, but that is virtually in the same way that others are voting for the article just because they like it. I don't like 4075:

discussions, checking for new facts and modifying their opinions as they feel appropriate. The fact that others did not change their opinions is, to me, reasonably good circumstantial evidence that they were unconvinced by the new evidence. That assumption is being tested here and, I believe, supported by the comparison of opinions between this discussion and the previous one. Few of the people who argued against the article last time have changed their opinions this time around.

4658:

therefore the default state. And frankly, I think relisting this on AFD would just waste a lot more of a lot of people's time. It just went through AFD with no consensus, now it's gone through DRV with no real consensus, another run on AFD will just cause more bad blood and have no productive result. I personally think option 1 works fine, as many people arguing the article should be kept did so on the basis of the proper AFD closure which Zoe disputed with her deletion.-

1966:. The last in-process action, among those listed on the talk page, was the deletion due to the 17 March nomination. The 27 March deletion review led to the result "Keep deleted", and the article was restored. The 14 April AfD led the result "No Consensus", and the article was deleted. This process let to the article being restored. Furthermore, I doubt very much that this game is the most common game called "the Game", but that's a content dispute. — 1244:, so as per the AfD rules, no consensus leads to keep. To argue that since the source is in a different language it shouldn't be in the English Knowledge (XXG) is the most explicit example of the systematic bias which we hope to avoid in writing about world-wide or non-English topics. Finally, it would be strongly appreciated if everyone (regardless of their opinion on the article) would cool off and refrain from personal attacks and try to remain civil. 4094:. According to the timestamp on his comment, the closing admin closed the DRV a mere seven hours after the new article was found. Given the length of the DRV up until that point (well over 300 hours), we're talking about less than 2.5 percent of the DRV's length from this article being presented until close. I'm not saying that this should change or reenforce opinions, just clarifying (having all the info can definitely help make a decision). 5143:

associations also build up. For example, if I lose for whatever reason and happen to be looking at the words "Arthur Rubin", then the next time I see those words I might lose. The more it happens the stronger the association becomes. It is sometimes difficult for players to pinpoint the exact thought process that lead to their loss. The Game is efectively an arbitrary thought that can be used to investigate memory and association. Also,

3209:. The supposed source only convinced those who were happy not to have a source in the first place, underlining the article's lack of verifiability. Attempts to point out that there is a high likelihood that the only source, a single newspaper article, was based on ours are met with "Prove it", as if any and all crap that gets written by bloggers is true until proven false, which is not how you go about writing an encyclopaedia. -- 4931:. In regard "the most common usage on the internet", there's no way of knowing. (The most common usage in real life is impossible to determine, unless one has access to NSA surveillance tapes.) Unless one of the search engines can be coerced into search for "he Game" in exact case, we have no way of determining what the most common use of "The Game" is. (In fact, that's not really adequate either, because it will detect 4360:. I'm going to say the same thing I said in the last AfD. keeps based on vague personal ideas about what Knowledge (XXG) is about and not on the relevant policies and guidelines are unproductive, worsen the already low signal/noise ratio in this discussion, and are likely to cause people to say keep deleted/redelete in reaction. If you don't have a policy-based opinion, it might be better to not say it. 1215:? I think the real question though, is why so many editors have wanted to keep this article whether or not a verifiable source can be found. I think is highly inappropriate for you to suggest that some kind of personal vendetta is driving the effort to keep this article out of Knowledge (XXG). There are a number of us who feel that Knowledge (XXG) does not need this kind of mindless, unsourced trivia. -- 4403:. It seems apparent that there is sufficent refrence to this game in other sources, and there is quite obviously no consensus. Additionaly, I have seen the vast proliferation of the game everywhere I have traveled in the past few years and it would seem that the claim of social phenomenon is absoloutly accurate. Thus I feel that alone is sufficent to warrent this article's existence. 997:. Although IMO back-section fluff like the article used as a source should not necessarily qualify as a reliable source, consensus is that if the leading section of a paper is reliable, then all the articles in the paper are reliable. I think that is a rosy view -- filler articles are often not fact-checked at all, but the article is not in stark violation of policy as it stands. 4032:. This was previously discussed and decided in a Deletion Review discussion. The recreation of the page should have been speedy-deleted. The last deletion review discussion as the last "in-process" decision made. The intervening AFD discussion is, in my opinion, moot. Yes, a single published source has now been found for this topic. But that was raised in the 3035:

dishwater-tepid closes. Hey admins, here's a good rule of thumb: Make your close reasoning proportional to the contention of the close. Even the most liberal reading imaginable of WP:Reliable Sources doesn't let this one in. Shall we start "voting" on Brian Peppers while we're at it? I love process and all, but I love the encyclopedia more, and we

3172:. "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." - 3026:. This article's continued existance is nothing short of an attack on the most foundational concepts of Knowledge (XXG). I, like Zoe, was waiting to see if the newer AfD would have something like a rational discourse. Failing that I'd have liked to have seen the adminstrator closing it to have shown a stronger stance on WP:V. Failing 4306:- I've seen it in play, and heard professors even comment on it. But that's neither here nor there, as that's a topic for a talk page or AFD. I don't see further immediate AFD solving this (I've been over some of the discussions), so I think we have to restore and consider relisting at some future date (6 month rule?) -- 2885:- I still feel this article needs a better source and should be watched to make sure unrefernced material isn't introduced. Also, I'm not pleased that the article was recreated and AfD'd, rather than discussed before recreation. However, it appears that the AfD was closed correctly, so I have no choice to to endorse it. -- 5047:

I can't eliminate, even from the translation in the article's talk page, the possibility that the "article" is a column similar to Dave Barry's — with no intention of asserting acuraccy. (No one has stated specifically that the article was a news item rather than a column.) As has been pointed out,

4134:

verifiable material. SPUI's reversion of FCYTravis's edits, from "a game featured in De Morgen" (which is all that is verifiable form sources) back to claiming it as a cultural phenomenon exemplify the problems with having an article on this subject. I consider it highly unlikely that anybody who is

3524:

Hmm, then a lot of facts in any newspaper article are going to be non-citable. For example, if an article says "Last year, President X of country Y did not visit allied Country _" without citing a source, that would be not-citable in your interpretation. You are rendering most facts in major, such as

3067:

article is not a reliable source by our guidelines. The only part of RS and V that this article fails is multiple verification. Some people view policies through a stricter lens than others, and your view of policy is no more salient that anyone else's. Also, this close was discussed on AN (as you

2999:

The amount of times an article reaches AfD doesn't indicate something is necessarily wrong with the article, nor does someone deleting it out of process. However, there is something wrong when people treat AfD or DRV as a voting process. Even if there were more votes for delete than keep (which, at

2816:. Article should remain in namespace and the administrator's actions should be reviewed. Sysop privileges are just that- privileges, held in trust by representatives of the community to speed along enforcement of consensus. When that trust is violated it harms the community and harms Knowledge (XXG).. 1515:

This individual has offered no new information to justify resurrecting this article that had not already been taken into account during the last deletion review. None. The last legitimate action to have been taken regarding this article was Aaron Brenneman's keep-deleted ruling on April 12, and it is

125:

uses the plural 'sources' in some cases it does not stress requiring multiple, independent sources. My opinion is that there are cases where a single source is sufficient, such as an article about a play could very well be entirely sourced from the play itself. This deletion was also out of process

5359:

15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Now responding to new observation, after striking out of old) As already pointed out the De Morgen source was on the first review page for all of about 2.5% of the review time, which is in not anyway evidence of an existing consensus. Indeed, the fact that the subsequent AfD

4566:

Not necessarily. As per Aaron Brenneman closing the last DRV on the article, it should have been deleted and permanently locked. Zoe's actions could be justifiable as an attempt to restore the state of the article to that position. Finally, I thought this place was built on consensus? The moment you

4232:

saying that he or she finds it inappropriate to name the professors, simply that they are not named. But the source that is being sought is one that provides evidence that it is a social phenomenon. I don't know that naming a professor and saying "they talked about it" would do much for WP:V right

1751:

Knowledge (XXG) is about consensus, and if those forming a consensus did not have all the information in front of them its hard to see that as a valid consensus. I'm curious in any case, if you think that we should defer to closing admins, shouldn't we defer to Prodego who closed the last AfD as no

1600:

Your first two sentences contradict each another. As you say, the AfD allows people to air "a range of opinions and arguments". However, if the people airing their opinions and arguments are unaware of a key source, then the fact it was raised in the final days clearly does matter. Especially as the

5240:

Regarding the last AfD, maybe I'm disagreeing with the policy on these decisions or something. I don't see why a wimp-out decision of "uh...I dunno" on an article that should not have been recreated in the first place is regarded the same as a majority consensus to keep. (It should've been a speedy

4462:

There is, of course, some ambiguity in the closing rules because both sides believe their action is "endorse closure", which gets an advantage in the counting rules (it only requires a majority, not a 3/4 supermajority). Right now I count about 45 restore votes to 16 delete, a 73% majority. So here

3461:

We have no reason to presume that the newspaper article was based on the Knowledge (XXG) article. In fact, if one compares the deleted version of the The Game article to the newspaper article, one is forced to conclude that there sources are different. They have slightly different rule descriptions

3295:

I don't know, I can't read Dutch (or Flemish, or Belgian, or pretty much any language that isn't English). Should the default assumption be that the article is unsuitable? For that matter, is there any default policy in regards to newspaper articles, given that they tend to be unsourced? I guess

3083:

We do not vote on verification, true. We also do not use absurd and stupid standards for verification that have been cooked up by some overzealous rules-lawyers who want to condense complex issues like the nature of reliable sources into machine-readable guidelines. Simply put, our current reliable

2533:

Heh, the comment you split up was mine also (just for the sake of refrence). I'll go ahead and transport to clear up any confusion. JoshuaZ has it right in regards to a Speedy Delete..there was a recent AfD, of which the result was no consensus. Whether that itself was out of process is a matter

2479:

about how to view this in context of the page about The Game, then a speedy delete is definitely uncalled for. In regards to the oringinal DRV, as several have pointed out, very few saw the Belgian article. This led to, not a community decision based on all the evidence, but a decision by very few

1541:

I don't really care what state the article is in, but I have a hard time calling Brenneman's keep deleted legitimate. The newspaper source was produced way after the debate had settled down (it started March 27th, newspaper article found April 11th) and was copy/paste moved to a subpage. The vast

4536:

The problem faced at present is that not only is there the ambiguity as to the meaning of "endorse clousre", but it's also not entirely clear which decision this DRV is actually reviewing. Is it reviewing the last no-con AfD or the speedy; and if the article was speedied, why is there currently an

4129:

foregn-language newspaper falls a long way short of verifiability per policy in this instance. I saw the source before voting on AfD. But the comments above are right: it should have been protected deleted ikn the first place; determination to include unverifiable material might indicate a desire

4074:

I would disagree with this assessment. The reference to this source was available for several days before the prior DRV discussion was finally closed. In my observation, I have seen that the participants on the Deletion Review page tend to be pretty compulsive and regularly return to and re-read

3815:

While as far as I am concerned, the only issue at hand is whether Zoe's deletion was in-process (and since she went a against a no-consensus vote without talking to the closing admin or bringing the matter here her deletion was not in process. We should be respecting the "no consensus" AfD.), some

1624:

I completely agree with you on the recreation. It should not have been recreated by Ashitaka. The same argument works against Zoe though, which is the action that is actually being reviewed (or the original closure, at this point I'm not even sure). We have processes so that one admin does not

4863:

An admin doing the closing can ignore keep and delete votes that are unrelated to deletion review. The keep votes will still have the majority. 75% is irrelevant unless you can justify counting "keep" as an "overturn" decision. I mentioned that as part of the "wikilawyer option" but didn't expect

4766:

No matter what the decision is it should probably be signed off by at least a few admins, and with a clear explaination. It would be nice if we could stop arguing over what the last "in process" action was along with arguing about the article and the closure of the xth AFD/DRV. I am unsure if AFD

4060:

This source wasn't viewed by the community at large. The closing admin, sure. But in the most recent AFD, an admin who had been uninvolved until that point found it sufficient to keep the article in existance. Regardless, this RfD is in effect serving the same purpose, as people are evaluating

3816:

people have attempted to again bring up the issue of whether the Belgian article is citable under Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines. I have therefore performed a little experiment on the talk page of this review, applying their standard to a New York Times article. The result is illuminating.

3525:

the New York Times, uncitable. If you want, on the talk page of this DRV, I'll take a section of a representative article(only a paragraph or two for fair use) and go through whats citable under this standard. The answer is, almost none. Nor for that matter, is your "policy" backed up anywhere in

2009:

I echo JoshuaZ's reply to Pegasus1138's response above. A seven-day, full-fledged, perfectly in-process discussion took place during the April AfD, showing that there is currently no community consensus to delete the article. Ruling to void this AfD because of a claim its mere existence was not

4657:

One more time: there is no process for creating articles, and it's OK to take something that's a potential speedy candidate to AFD. And if it survives AFD, it's not a speedy candidate as a recreation any more. There's no basis to say the most recen AFD was "out of process" and that deletion is

4541:

hope of leading to a resolution - and #2 will just be closed as per #5. Sigh. Also, I'm not sure I like the description of deleting the article as "going cowboy"; if the decision is made to concur with the speedy deletion (which may or may not be the case), then deleting the article is the right

2985:

If four diffrent people have put this up on AFD, and it has been deleted twice, something is seriously wrong with the article, not to mention something wrong with our methods. Even though there is no consensus, when looking at all of the discussions, there are more delete votes than keep. This

2838:

There really isn't. If you disagree, please point out an element of policy somewhere that contradicts me, or that says that recreations can't be taken to AFD rather than speedy deleted at a user's discretion. Therefore, the most recent in process close was Prodego's AFD close as no consensus.

1629:

to decide that they know better than everyone else. If you accept the result of the AFD you reward one admin's cowboy attitude, but the converse is also true as Zoe's action is the same. She decided that she knew better than the closer of the debate and deleted it instead of bringing it here.

184:

It is isn't clear to me how any of that is relevant. And don't think you mean "falsified" but "incorrect" Finally, its not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to investigate a reliable source once the source is reliable. Just because there have been issues in (to use the perennial example) the New York Time's

4251:

Oh no, I definitely agree with that. I just don't follow that some professor at some school mentioning it in lecture (never mind how hard sourcing that is going to be) will help us if WP:V is still being debated. A (peer reviewed) psychology journal, on the flipside, would help immensely, and

863:

I believe that the claim here is that as recreated content that failed a deletion review it is effectively out of process. In fact, this is incorrect, recreated content is speediable if uncontested, it then goes to AfD (I think), but in any case, given that the AfD occured and it was a clear no

5237:

I've said pretty much all I can say about this in previous debates. I'm getting tired of it, and I don't see why this nonsense needs to be here in the first place. It's just not encyclopedic, and all I ever have seen the article used for is the collection of original research, and the supposed

4736:

I think a more accurate summary would be that Speedy Deleting before the most recent AfD would have been in process, speedying after is definitely not. There's also a lot of people who don't think that one admin should be the end all be all on a source most people hadn't seen at the time. (Of

4686:

to the world by spitefully recreating it while offering no new information that the deleting admin hadn't already considered was legitimate; attempting to undo this cowboy re-creation was illegitimate; and if you're still not happy with the single, sorry-assed, unsourced newspaper article that

2114:

There's no such thing as "out of process" creation of an article because there is no process for creating articles. A speedy deletion of the article immediately after its recreation probably would have been an in process action, but taking it to AFD instead is not "out of process," and, as no

1465:

Now, wait a sec... just because something is an absurd children's game, that doesn't mean that noting it is valueless. I'm sure a child psychologist could make an interesting observation regarding the appeal of the game to young minds vs. the disgust it can inspire in adults. In that sense, I

5288:

Three issues with yout statement: First, as already pointed out, the new version of the article is very arguably a new version and thus acceptable as a recreation without going through another review. Second, even if it shouldn't have been recreated, that's makes a speedy candidate, and it is

3510:

Let me put it this way: No referred sources, no consideration as a source whatsoever from me. A reporter who'd given me that article for publication would have gotten it back, as confetti. Printing it in anything but, say, a school newspaper or a tabloid is really sad if the paper is actually

5142:

Arthur, people play The Game for number of reasons. Personally, I find it interesting to see what causes people to think of The Game, and hence lose. Sometimes these will be obvious causes, such as talking about other games, but at other times the reasons will be completely abstract. Various

4769:

If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a

1660:

explicitly implied that he was aware of the article and still didn't consider it sufficient), the fact remains that the article was deleted, it was sent to DRV which did not overturn that decision, and a day later the article was back. DRV is about assessing process, not forming consensus to

1019:

I agree that there are serious problems with a single source for a phenomenon that is contained in only one verifiable source, but that can be addressed within the article. If the source is found to be circular back to Knowledge (XXG) or otherwise questioned, a new AfD would be appropriate.

3034:

admins who closed this take the time to write something up regarding the manner in which they closed. None of these things happened. Instead, we've had the most extreme case of clutching at straws with regard to sources I've ever had the displeasure to observe, followed by not one but two

4160:

True, a website was set up to get refrences. However, I don't know that said website is that popular, particularly amongst those who aren't already coming to this wiki (and thus involved in the search as it is). I'm wondering if STG.org isn't serving an identical purpose to the article's

5183:: I really don't see a problem here. Article was written put up for AfD, consensus was to delete, subsequently confirmed by DRV. New article is written, addressing WP:V concerns, article is taken to AfD as recreation of deleted content, AfD decides it's fine. Totally within process. -- 4417:. Per Polotet. AfD is still in-process, even if speedy deletion was an option. One cow administrator's novel ideas aside, there is no consensus on the issue of verifiability, which defaults to a keep. hoepfully we can put this absolutely ludicrous debate to rest for at least a while. 3296:

what I'm looking for is either something in Wiki policy that somewhat clearly says this is not an acceptable source, or some evidence that the article was based on Wikis. Lacking either of those, I accept it as a valid source (but can see why others might be hesitant not to accept it)

4824:

Your vote doesn't seem to have much to do with deletion policy. We're not discussing the content of the article, but the decisions that have been made about its deletion. Also, spreading the mistaken idea that Knowledge (XXG) is necessary to "keep The Game alive" or "save The Game" is

2775:

I'll elaborate on my beans, then. Anyone who invokes yet another process (like starting a 5th AfD, speedy deleting the article, starting an RfC, etc.) shortly after this DR closes should be reverted for disruption. Nothing is going to change in a week to create consensus, and the

4161:

solicitation for more sources, in that anyone who would go there is already aware of that need. If anything, it's more of a fansite, and I don't think it's lack of results is indicative of anything more than the article's lack of results with its own request for more sources.

4737:

course, the proper channel then would have been to DRV it again, but it's a bit late for that). If you're not happy with the source, of course you should bring it back to AfD. I doubt it will get any more consensus than it has in the past, but feel free to try it anyway.

3985:

of the closures, not on the article itself, because we've had enough unproductive discussion of the article. And maybe you meant to do so, in a way I don't understand. Do you mean that one of closing decisions hinges on whether the Belgian newspaper article is impressive?

2386:

Google searches do not establish prevalence with high accuracy, but they can make a rough approximation. If for example, you go through the hits on that phrase by hand, you will find that almost all of them are referring to The Game (game). As for the issue of naming it

3084:

source and verifiability guidelines are deeply flawed documents that close off large numbers of valid paths for large numbers of valid articles in pursuit of foreclosing the viewpoints of a handful of nutjobs that we were perfectly capable of foreclosing anyway.

5271:

And this is the problem I have. An admin looking in there, shrugging their shoulders and saying "I dunno...no consensus" shouldn't count as "passing" AfD if the article should not have even existed, immediately after a DRV that said it should've stayed deleted.

5100:

played, and that it is not the case that all the referents on the web are people "pretending" to play the game, although I find it more plausible that someone would pretend to play the game than to actually play the game. Personally, I think it would only meet

1211:. For one thing, very few of our readers understand Flemish/Dutch. And if this game is so important in English speaking countries, why is the only printed reference offered so far from Belgium? Finally, what has been done to establish that this newspaper is a 3045:

people about what a real source is and what is and isn't encyclopedic, instead of rolling over and giving it up because guys who "learned it in camp" think it should stay. If we do not develop a robust method of dealing with issues like this we're doomed. -

2444:

this article fails. Nor is an article multiple paragraphs in length, devoted solely to the subject a "passing" mention. Lastly, unless you're suggesting STG.org is some massively popular site, I don't think it's lack of results is indicative of anything.

2932:: Regardless of whether the Game is stupid (that is totally irrelevant to this discussion), the article should not have been deleted. To those who claim that it was recreated out of process, that point should have been brought up at the appropriate time. — 4476:

Count the options asymmetrically. This will function exactly the same as one of the above arguments, except it gives people the opportunity to call you biased and thus creates even more conflict. This is almost the most disruptive possible choice, except

2757:

was out of process as process only gauges consensus, and there is none (but I think it was the correct call at the time). However, I fail to see how arguing about previous process decisions has much relevence after there has been another process ruling.

3475:

WHAT sources?! The newspaper article quoted nothing at all. There is *no* source in it. It reads like an opinion piece, IMO, and really has nothing to give this discussion except a useful thing for people to point to and say "Look, a source!" Totally

2629:. This battle has been long, ugly, and increasingly indeed a battle rather than a debate. Voters have refused to listen to changes in facts, administrators have acted solely on their own opinions. Every outcome has been disputed, every appeal made. 4916:

I'm confused by your comment, what justification is there for protecting it? As I understand the protection policy, the two basic reasons an artice can be protected is to 1) prevent a temporary edit war 2) deal with an extreme vandalism attack.

4798:

that it'll survive AFD (since it was on weeks ago), we shouldn't put it up. We can stick a notice on the talk page, asking users not to relist for 3-6 months. That'll allow time for tempers to cool and for people to maybe find more references

4036:

deletion review discussion and failed to convince the community to change their opinions. I personally find a single human interest story on a slow news day to be insufficient to support an encyclopedia article. This remains a non-article.

3980:

Sure, there's some disagreement about which closure we're discussing, as the lead section of the DRV mentions both the closure of AfD #4 and Zoe's speedy deletion afterward. To stay on topic, I'd like people to base their comments on at least

1038:

What Robert said, with the reservation that it's not actually consensus but a lack of consensus that brings us to this conclusion. There's a strong case to be made for changing the no-consensus outcome for AfDs, but with the current policies,

5360:

was a no consensus is strong evidence that if the people involved in the primary review had been aware of the De Morgen article many might have responded differently. Furthermore, the second and third points above still stand by any account.

2647:

I've seen some concerns that everything after the original DRV was out of process. If the article passes this DRV, which has all of the evidence available, are we back in process, or is it still invalidated by the recreation of the article?

5261:

It was a candidate for speedy. Until someone took it to AfD and it passed (as closed by an admin uninvolved until asked to evaluate and close the AfD). It should have gone back to DRV instead of being recreated, but since it passed AfD...

4583:

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my above comment. What I meant was that the 73% makes it hard to claim at this point in time that there is a consensus to delete. Incidentally, I think bringing it back to AfD may be the most sensible thing.

2395:, thats an issue removed from whether some version of the article should stay. I suggest we resolve the deletion/restoration matter and then concentrate on problems like the naming if it is restored. The matter is complicated enough as is. 946:

no consensus, and that means the article should be kept. Also, it's becoming clear at this point that the article isn't what's disruptive to Knowledge (XXG), but the deletion debate is, and I'd consider Zoe's adding fuel to the flames to be

278:

I have the sinking feeling we'll only get another non consensus if we go to AfD again (I doubt this DRV is going to have a strong consensus either way either), not to mention the concern over what is and is not out of process in this case

5395:

While I agree with your general sentiment, it is fallacious to say that any given article should stay because there are more egregious ones. The response to that is "we'll get around to dealing with those later" or something like that.

5386:- why this article has attracted so much attention on the grounds that it's unverifiable is quite mysterious, since there are many, many, many more articles which actually are failing on verifiability grounds and yet remain undeleted. 2461:. Even though I'm still unhappy with the recreation that led to the April AfD, I'll respect the no consensus that resulted from that AfD, which was certainly in-process. And since "no consensus" = "keep", that should be the end of it. 4372:

My personal observations have suggested that these sorts of votes tend to result in a differing analysis; the more nonsense votes, the less arsed the closing admin is and the more likely they are to wimp out and say "no consensus".

3246:

Is there any evidence that the newspaper article was based on something written on Wiki? It's one thing to say people are ignoring this "high likilihood", but how is your claim any different from that of a "crap writing blogger"?

2701:

Given Zoe's recent comments on my talk page, I would not be surprised if she choose to delete it again even after this review was complete. She seems to think that no form of consensus can override her interpretation of policy.

4681:

So, to summarize your position: Deleting this article because the single, sorry-assed article that's been provided as a source offers no clue as to where any of its information comes from was illegitimate; sending out a giant

1299:

I'm not saying that everyone has a vendetta, just that the actions of Zoe (which I believe is the cause of this current discussion) are unreasonable and appear to be a case of exactly what you describe, a dislike of The Game.

584:. Incidentally, let me say again that I hate the process obsession such that I'm expected to figure out what the fuck the closure I'm endorsing or rejecting is. Article is verifiable. Article should exist. Isn't that simpler. 3565:. The article, and the arguments for it, make a mockery of wikipedia. Is this an encyclopedia or not? If people want it to be a chat room/forum discussion for their own little games, they should be big enough to admit it. 5241:

candidate in my opinion...the argument against it was that the recreated article was different enough from the cruft-tacular article that was put through AfD #3 to dodge the "recreation of deleted content" qualification.)

1239:

We've been over most of this before. The newspaper is a major Belgian newspaper. Major newspapers often are seen to have presumption of reliability. There was essentially no consensus as to whether or not the source met

3970:

Per the instructions at the top of the drv, "When making recommendations, please use 'delete' or 'restore' where possible, as "endorse closure" is not particularly informative in this saga with at least six closures."

4485:

I've put those options in order of how much conflict they'll create. Note that the first three end up keeping the article, eventually. Is there any reasonable justification for choosing an option besides the first?

445:

The single source didn't show up until the end of the DRV discussion, most of the commentators in the DRV probably never saw it, and it is unclear to me whether or not the closing admin looked at the source either.

5458:

The name of the article is essentially unrelated to this review. Please keep discussion related to the merits of the article name to the relevant talk page. This is confusing and complicated enough a review as is.

980:

Seconded. This sort of unilateral action only serves to show the loss of perspective caused by this whole sordid affair. Do we have to allow this DRV to run its full course, or is there a "speedy keep" option?

724: 86: 5121:

There must be a lot I'm missing here because your last few sentences seem to be a sequence of non sequitors (I apologize for the abuse of language), how would whether or not it is a hoax in any way change the

3068:

know since you commented there), but I too would have liked more of an explaination in the closure of the debate and the closer did not respond to your request for one. You didn't exactly ask nicely though.

3000:

least, in the 4th AfD there weren't), that's not a valid way to decide the matter. Citing policy is, reaching consensus on whether the article meets standards is. Ranting about incompetent deletion is not.

4089:

While the people not changing their opinion this time may be telling, and people rereading and rechecking DRV or AfD is true in my experience, I'm going to have to disagree on one major point here. You said

1601:

majority of the discussion was about verifiability. As for "Please do not reward this behavior", whether or not Ashibaka followed correct procedure is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist.

2754: 4011:

My intent was to discuss the closing by Prodego by playing the part of Zoe challenging the closure in the nomination. Sorry if this confused anyone, but I'm sure no matter what there would be ambiguity.

3462:

and different lists of countries they are played in, among other major differences. I would be surprised if it turned out that we were the source for the article, since all the evidence points otherwise.

3789:

is for, and if no reliable sources can be found, no information needs to be included about it. If it's not important enough to be written about with reliable sources, we don't need an article on it. -

5525: 3489:

This argument has been brought up a number of times and is completely ridiculous. What you seem to be saying is that for a source to be reliable, it needs to be supported by a reliable source. This

36: 3785:

and use that to verify including an article on it. It seems that's not far from what's going on here, but at least we can apply Knowledge (XXG) policy to keep it to a minimum. This is exactly what

635:

This is reminding me of the Brian Peppers debacle. I'm just waiting for Jimbo to delete the article as recreation of previously deleted content and proclaim it shouldn't be recreated for a year.

4776:

latest closure and thus the article should be kept. The only other option (if you follow the process) would be to relist on AFD. There is certainly not a supermajority to overturn the closure.

2423:. Unverifiable from reliable sources. The fact that only one passing mention in a Dutch-language newspaper could be found even after an website was set up to solicit citations is telling. 4695:. Well, you've helped me make my mind up on one thing, at least: when this article is retained—and it will be—I'll take it back to AfD myself, if someone else doesn't get there before me. -- 5311:. As far as I can tell, the "new" version differs from the "old" in that the AfD notice was removed, and a couple of links were removed. And that's it. Are you seeing something I'm not? -- 5016:

I disagree. Unless, of course, you think the DeMorgan article was a hoax, and that there's a massive band of people spread across the internet trying to pull one over on Knowledge (XXG).

4757:

criteria for this article. I suppose taking it to DRV would have been more prudent, but I'm 99 percent sure the result would have ended up little different from what we've recieved here.

4635:

Another AfD will simply be a madhouse (again, nothing has changed since the last one) and have no end result worthy of interpretation. To satisfy everyone's concerns, we simply need a

373:. What an odd situation. First the article was recreated out of process after DRV determined to keep it deleted, then it's deleted out of process after the AfD decided to keep it. Huh. 4469:

Count both options as overturns, so neither option makes the 3/4 supermajority (though "restore" misses by just 2%), and we have to relist the discussion as AfD #5, where there is a

1855:) to find one who hasn't been involved in the debate, presumably. I don't pretend to know the full details of administrative process, though, so I'm willing to be corrected on that. 479:

I'd urge everyone who wants an article kept based upon a single (unsourced) newspaper article to carefully review the guidelines on verification, bias, and reliability of sources.

4626:

I was thinking not in terms of policy (I can't see a very good policy reason to relist) but as a reasonable compromise that will make the most people happy. Compromise is good.

5203:

Just as improper as it was for the creator of DRV #1 to decide that the closing admin's decision wasn't good enough for them, and remove the protection on the deleted article?

3668:: I would seriously consider asking ArbCom to rule on this. I know they don't generally consider content disputes, but this is a little bigger than your usual content dispute. 2534:

for another time. But speedying after an AfD found no consensus when WP:V was put to the question, and WP:V is the reason for speedying..that's what I had the problem with.

795:

I think he is saying that recreating the page was out of process, so therefore the AfD should be discounted as out of process. I would disagree with that assessment however.

4121:

newspaper article does not make a sourced areticle. Remember, this is claimed to be a widespread global phenomenon, and an entire website was set up to solicit references -

519:

I said "looked at the source" Maybe it would be more accurate if I said "read the source" (since it isn't in English) and/or "realized it was from a major Belgian newspaper"

4935:, an episodic TV series, and any other TV and movie titles with "the game" in title case. The search for "I just lost the game" would suggests that this is the most common 4181:. I would absolutely love to see this "article" deleted, but it is clear that there was no consensus so it needed to be kept. Bring it to another AfD in a couple of months. 313:, and I'll also note that the proper action when you disagree with the result of an AFD is to take it here, not to delete it out of process, whether or not you're an admin.- 3945:

This is a deletion review, not AfD. The content of the article has been discussed for months, with no consensus. What we're discussing now is the closure of the last AfD.

3847:

This is a deletion review, not AfD. The content of the article has been discussed for months, with no consensus. What we're discussing now is the closure of the last AfD.

3633:

I can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I think the article (and the game) is complete tosh and deserves to be eradicated as totally unencyclopaedic. On the other hand,

2867:, I have been ambivilant on the article, I'm not horribly impressd with the source, but process has clearly been followed, and Zoe is disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to make a 70:

When making recommendations, please use "delete" or "restore" where possible, as "endorse closure" is not particularly informative in this saga with at least six closures.

2750: 5298:"First, as already pointed out, the new version of the article is very arguably a new version and thus acceptable as a recreation without going through another review." 3109:(and the best of luck if you want to try and force a policy change through that route). Until then, they remain policy and that means they still have to be adhered to. 3770:. The game exists, and needs an article. We need to find references for it, but in the meantime we need to put up with a valid article that isn't yet referenced. -- 4274:

The professor in no way devoted a lecture to it, but it came up offhandly. I never found it inappropriate to name him, it's just not something sufficient enough for

2170:

If this game isn't the most commonly called the Game, then surely there would be more information, even just on blogs and whatnot, on this supposed other game, right?

2834:

was recreated after the last DRV, it was arguably valid speedy candidate, but it wasn't speedied and instead taken to AFD. For everyone who blathers about process:

3354:(which I edited by request, to add information, but did not create nor request creation.) This article does not provide evidence that the game actually exists. — 2333:

of "the game", according to the article, the prevalence of that phrase is nearly an upper bound on the prevalence of "the game". I'm willing to accept a rename to

1130:- for the millionth time. WP:V is no longer violated. If the article starts making big claims then it'll be violated. in its current short form its perfectly ok. -- 4201:- This was mentioned in Sociology and Psychology classes at the University of Wales in Bangor. It's a social phenomenon, and I don't see any grounds for deletion. 1505:, or keep deleted, or whatever. This article was kept deleted on April 12 by an admin who had full awareness and knowledge of the fabled Belgian newspaper article. 5329:. Again, basically the same article except that everything in the newer version comes from the source that the closing admin had just rejected as failing to meet 3620:

How do arguments about how policy should be implemented and if something meets Knowledge (XXG)'s standards make a mockery of Wiki? I thought that was the point?

3222:

Then how do you explain the change from a delete result on the "last valid" AFD to a clear no consensus on the one we just had. Even the closing admin stated on

2593:

Your comment is about the article. It would belong in an AfD, and that already happened. Discussions here are not about articles, but about deletion decisions.

2480:

people. As evidenced by the last AfD linked at the top of this current discussion, that article now has cast enough doubt so that consensus cannot be reached.

3387:

That article has no sources. I am going to assert that it is completely made up, and that you are in fact a kitten huffing robot still because it has none.

1986:. As long as the article is renamed to something descriptive, I'm willing to accept it as encyclopedic, even though I'm still not convinced it's actually 1359:. Althoug I must say I think most people here cheated; its illegal not to say you lost the game. During the typing of this sentence, I lost several times. 2830:

One more time, since people have continued claiming things about process: Article creation doesn't have a process, and can never be out of process. When

4958:

like to stress: the article needs trimming down to only the facts stated in the paper and little more. If it starts expanding to where it was last time,

4753:

While I can't endorse the recreation after the fact, I also don't think that it should have been up to just Aaron to decide if the article satisfied the

4767:

will achieve consensus, but some people were voting on the process instead of the article. That being said I will quote from the box at the top of DRV.

2027:

I'm treating this as a review of the 27 March proposal. Hence I endorse closure and say the situation should be reverted to the status at that time --

5076:? Third, what do you mean by claiming it might be a hoax? Everyone agrees that the game exists and that people play it. The issue is whether we have a 3418:

Yeah, actually, you picked a pretty bad example. Aside from the sentence about your Erdos number, The Game has one more verifiable source than you do.

1320:: of course, as I closed the AfD. The main dabate on the AfD was whether or not the newspaper souce was verifible, and there was clearly no consensus. 1207:

Well, I also think this article does not belong in Knowledge (XXG). I am also not convinced that the Belgium newspaper article is enough to establish

4597:

thing. What would be accomplished by relisting on AfD, besides prolonging this overblown debate another five days and guaranteeing us all a place on

679:

I would suggest that since the deletion was out of process, the recreation of the article should be allowed to stand while the DRV discussion runs.-

548:

In any case, the community is supposed to make the decision, and the closing admin reflect that, rather than the closer just making the decision. --

207:. The verifiability of this article should not be discussed on the admin noticeboard nor on deletion review. Bring it to another AfD or ArbCom. ~ 707:

last in process procedure was the DRV to keep deleted after an AFD to delete which is what should be gone by not all these out of process actions.

2780:

thing we need is more unproductive debate. What "should" have been done will never be clear, and nothing will be remedied by more wiki-lawyering.

1184:

After it is written about in a reputable newspaper, Zoe votes "Delete" because "This article does now, has always, and will always, violate WP:V".

4282:

in the sense that I attended the lecture. It was not supposed to be the dominant part of my post. As my next sentence said, this is not about

3270:

based on something written on Wiki? Or, for that matter, is there any evidence that the newspaper article was based on anything in reality? —

4051:

Just to be anal at this point: The source was added very late into the discussion, and as can be observed had very little time to propagate. --

1714:

With all due respect... everyone else's opinions on the source are irrelevant. If the admin, in whose hands the decision does ultimately rest (

4939:

game, but even that is questionable, as that phrase is part of the rules. I might see the newspaper article as demonstration of some part of

2909:

is now debateable (whereas before it was clear-cut.) Therefore, I endorse the latest closure. (Although, I hoped it would be more verbose.) --

5219:

While it would have been better for another admin to unprotect the page, it has been judged by the AfD that it was not recreated content. --

5068:

I was previously confused by your logic and am now highly confused. First, what is the "extraordinary claim" here? Second, since when was a

2901:

It has been pointed out that this comment is rather vague. I'd like to clarify, I still think the article should be deleted, due to lack of

2749:

I would argue that the last in process action that was not preceeded by an out of process action was the keeping of the article after the

2010:

in-process, using this to act according to an actually currently-outdated discussion, does seem to fit the definition of wikilawyering. ~

4571:

be won by Keep by sheer weight of number of plonkers on the Intarwob. (I accept that that's probably a rant for another place, however.)

4219:

Mentionned by students or lecturers? If the latter, do you, like the next editor (ZachPruckowski), think it inappropriate to name them?

3145:

for now with out any prejudice against relisting after some more time has passed. A no consensus decision is to be respected and there

1274:, but I don't think there should be an article about her. Personal taste is not what we work on here, and to assume that people are is 5488:. I request that other users in this discussion don't try to turn that request into yet another forum for arguing over the article. 5096:

The that the game is widespread has no verification (including the article), and seems implausible. I'm willing to accept that it

2475:

The reliability of the news article is in question. That's fine. Such things need to be discussed and debated. But when there is

4794:

How about "Option 7 - Restore, and wait to relist on AFD". I feel like that's the best solution. I mean, if we feel confident by

5438:

a game. The article doesn't state or imply it's a game. I'd accept another title, although I still don't see strong evidence of

5355:, yes it is very reasonable to see it as new content. And even if it weren't new content, the second and third point still stand. 2946:. I can't believe this is still being debated. We have the required source. Let's end this pointless debate and keep the article. 1448:. I'd just like to say this: Does it really matter? Can anyone say they care really deeply about this either way, and if so, why? 2986:

article shows how incopenent all of are in deleting articles. We dont need five discusions just to destory this piece of junk.

2280:

Your question was about prevalence. It answers that specifically. That search and similar google searches show it is prevalent.

1625:

make decisions. Process gets things wrong sometimes. We have processes to check the results of process! Again, no need for a

4770:

three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.

2493:(whatever the next comment was in response to, there doesn't seem to have been a "speedy delete" in this history.) — 1726:, then that is his decision to make. Admins are appointed based on their ability to impartially make these choices, after all. 1681:

1. A closing admin basing his decision on a collection of opinions and arguments regarding a new source, and the source itself.

100:. Since that is essentially a challenge of the closure, I have brought it here. Her reasoning for deletion was "violation of 1419:

per above. DRV has been dealing quite a bit with Zoe lately -- She should take a break on "creative deletions" for a while.

4726: 4671: 2852: 2128: 2056:

Ok, so in other words you are commenting on an action which this review isn't reviewing. Thank you for the clarification.

1381: 918: 833: 740: 692: 326: 2441: 5340: 5318: 4702: 2915: 2891: 2730: 1577: 1523: 648:

This isn't nearly as bad. For one, we don't have people claiming to represent relatives of The Game threatening to sue.

3173: 17: 5508: 5479: 5463: 5450: 5426: 5400: 5390: 5364: 5346: 5293: 5283: 5266: 5254: 5223: 5214: 5198: 5187: 5175: 5151: 5134: 5113: 5088: 5060: 5039: 5020: 5006: 4982: 4921: 4907: 4888: 4858: 4849: 4819: 4803: 4780: 4761: 4741: 4731: 4708: 4676: 4643: 4630: 4621: 4588: 4575: 4558: 4546: 4528: 4519: 4506: 4452: 4435: 4421: 4407: 4389: 4377: 4364: 4348: 4336: 4322: 4310: 4290: 4265: 4256: 4246: 4237: 4223: 4214: 4205: 4193: 4165: 4143: 4098: 4084: 4069: 4055: 4046: 4016: 4006: 3975: 3965: 3940: 3926: 3896: 3867: 3842: 3820: 3806: 3793: 3774: 3756: 3739: 3726: 3710: 3677: 3658: 3624: 3607: 3590: 3569: 3541: 3515: 3501: 3480: 3466: 3438: 3391: 3362: 3330: 3300: 3278: 3251: 3235: 3213: 3199: 3185: 3162: 3135: 3113: 3088: 3072: 3054: 3052: 3004: 2990: 2975: 2961: 2936: 2920: 2896: 2875: 2857: 2820: 2800: 2762: 2736: 2706: 2685: 2652: 2637: 2613: 2584: 2562: 2538: 2518: 2501: 2484: 2465: 2449: 2431: 2399: 2353: 2284: 2255: 2226: 2205: 2174: 2159: 2133: 2115:

discussions had fully considered the new inclusion of the Belgian newspaper article, was probably the right decision.-

2097: 2060: 2039: 2014: 1998: 1974: 1953: 1939: 1909: 1859: 1818: 1785: 1756: 1730: 1697: 1665: 1634: 1605: 1583: 1546: 1529: 1491: 1474: 1456: 1436: 1423: 1409: 1383: 1349: 1330: 1304: 1282: 1248: 1223: 1198: 1166: 1146: 1120: 1106: 1084: 1070: 1052: 1029: 1014: 985: 971: 923: 872: 838: 799: 778: 745: 714: 697: 667: 652: 639: 621: 604: 588: 574: 552: 523: 494: 450: 425: 397: 384: 363: 349: 331: 299: 283: 267: 248: 227: 211: 189: 176: 148: 130: 108: 80: 57: 5475:

This has been open since the 22, much longer than DRs are normally kept around. Could some admin please close this?

4524:

6) Someone else suggested going to ArbCom, but since this is essentially a content issue, that's not a good idea.

3690:

content disputes either. People aren't violating policy in this debate, only disagreeing about its interpretation.

4713:

I do love it when somebody misreads my comment and it leads them to decide to do soemthing completely irrational.-

617:

Principle and an understanding of why we do what we do is important. Process, as this is showing, is just a mess.

5351:

In so far as there was a new source, the De Morgen article, and the principle issue was having a source that met

2836:

THERE IS NOTHING OUT OF PROCESS ABOUT TAKING AN ARTICLE THAT MIGHT BE A SPEEDY DELETION CANDIDATE TO AFD INSTEAD.

4854:

Oh, on the contrary; this vote adds another one towards the Magical 75% that gets the article arbitrarily kept.

3041:. This article in of itself may not be "harmful" but the precedent is. Everyone needs to grow some stones and 5171:. Per various comments above, meets criteria albeit barely. May be biased, of course, speaking as a player. -- 1374: 1360: 4687:

comprises the thread by which this article currently hangs, please don't try to do anything about it, because

3834: 5194:

Oh, and another thing. I think it was highly improper for Zoe to delete the page if she voted in the AfD. --

1693:

Yes, he took into account the source, but he did not take into account anyone else's opinions on the source.

1512:

resurrected a day later by the very person who'd originally brought it to deletion review in the first place.

5279: 5250: 5210: 2959: 2514:

In this context the speedy refered to is Zoe's deletion after the last AfD had been closed as no consensus.

2222:

If you google for the phrase "I just lost the game" you will return hits almost uniformily about The Game.

1181:"Until there is a writeup in a reputable newspaper or magazine, this does not have any veracity." - User:Zoe 1025: 1010: 1002: 490: 421: 380: 4554:

Given that 73% are in favor of restoration, deleting it without an AfD at this point would be unwarranted.

4515:

You forgot option #5: wimp out, say "no consensus to do anything whatsoever" and... do nothing whatsoever.

2812:. The deletion was out of process and relies on a questionable (though possibly correct) interpretation of 5447: 5110: 5057: 5003: 3771: 3359: 3275: 3153:

if there is a violation at all. Still, I do find this thing somewaht lacking when it comes to notability.

2498: 2350: 2326: 2252: 2202: 2156: 2094: 2036: 1995: 1971: 472: 173: 156:. There have been falsified articles in the New York Times, also. And -- has anyone verified if it's an 4185: 1367: 144:. Note also that the main source is from a major Belgian newspaper, so no issues with credibility there. 2321:

does not unindex duplicate pages — as can easily be seen by seeing how many copies of unique typos from

1345: 4601:? We'll just come to the same conclusion (no consensus) we would have come to if Zoe hadn't showed up. 4943:, but it doesn't eliminate — or even significantly reduce — the possiblity that it's an Internet hoax. 4473:

of a consensus being reached, so the article will end up kept anyway. This is the "wikilawyer" option.

2553:

The article has in fact been speedied twice, by me (quickly followed by an undelete) and then by Zoe.

600:

Process is particularly important in controversial topics, otherwise they would become free for alls.

5411: 3637:

and there hasn't been much in the line of well-defined consensus at AFD and DRV debates in the past.

3210: 3063:

How does protecting it deleted help when two admins recreate the page? Also, please explain how the

3047: 3020: 2872: 2388: 2334: 1657: 265: 5238:"players" using it to lure people in and spread it around. (It can be seen as advertising, in a way) 5303: 5172: 4800: 4307: 4287: 4229: 3157: 2839:

Anyone who says the old DRV was the last in process action is either ignorant of process or lying.-

2817: 2329:

are found in a google search. Furthermore, as that phrase "I just lost the game.", as written, is

1341: 1194:

I'm beginning to think this is more about personal vendettas than what's best for Knowledge (XXG).

53: 5031:

I also disagree, no one (I think) is arguing that The Game doesn't exist, merely whether it has a

4777: 4013: 3634: 3537:

16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I have taken the iniative to do this on the talk page of this review.

3388: 3327: 3069: 2759: 1631: 1543: 1271: 127: 105: 5275: 5246: 5206: 4404: 4202: 3735:

I can't help but feel that that completely pointless rant needed to be ended with an evil laugh.

3085: 2953: 2948: 2345:, as I'm willing to accept the likelihood that it's the most prevalent meme called "the Game". — 1164: 1021: 1006: 998: 618: 585: 486: 417: 376: 4865: 4567:

start hand-counting opinions and bandying around figures, this place becomes a vote; which will

4332:- And thank god I finally know what The Game is -- it's been bugging me for over a year now. -- 2868: 2662: 1626: 948: 4932: 4242:

No, but if, for example, it got mentioned in a psychology journal, that would be nice to know.

5443: 5220: 5195: 5184: 5106: 5053: 4999: 4975: 4719: 4664: 4108: 4080: 4042: 3355: 3271: 3230: 3180: 3132: 2845: 2494: 2346: 2248: 2198: 2152: 2121: 2090: 2032: 1991: 1967: 1328: 1139: 911: 826: 733: 685: 549: 319: 169: 4795: 4598: 4470: 5518:

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

5500: 4880: 4841: 4613: 4498: 3998: 3957: 3859: 3702: 3673: 3654: 3586: 3494: 3430: 2792: 2677: 2605: 2558: 1905: 1656:

on this one. Regardless of when the newpaper article was presented as evidence (in closing,

1570:, and re-created the article in violation of process. Please do not reward this behavior. -- 1405: 963: 770: 709: 393:

If it was deleted because it lacked sources, recreation with sources isn't out of process.

76: 29:

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

5130:

issue? Can you please be more explicit in your logic for your last three comments? Thanks,

4357: 4279: 3919: 3889: 3642: 1715: 1559: 1275: 1116:

per the fact that a "no consensus" becomes a "keep", in the interests of wikicompleteness.

5423: 4855: 4640: 4572: 4543: 4516: 4374: 4220: 4190: 4182: 3736: 3604: 3566: 3110: 2831: 2392: 2342: 2011: 1936: 1856: 1782: 1727: 1662: 1267: 1048: 262: 245: 208: 63: 5524:

Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, I don't know where exactly. Maybe the

5485: 5419: 5352: 5326:

Wrong illegitimate re-creation! This article is very confusing. Here's the correct diff:

3530: 3223: 3106: 2906: 2902: 2085:

what this process is supposed to be doing. A more detailed discusion of my vote what be

1897: 1852: 1719: 1241: 1212: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, I don't know where exactly. Maybe the

5302:? Here's the diff between the version that was deleted on March 23 and the version that 4991:. If the article doesn't include the possibility that it's a hoax, it will suffer from 1781:

No, because there shouldn't have been an article for him to rule on in the first place.

4345: 3839: 3831: 3320: 3154: 1488: 1453: 1433: 571: 394: 296: 49: 5439: 5415: 5383: 5330: 5127: 5123: 5102: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5032: 4995: 4940: 4754: 4283: 4275: 4062: 3908: 3786: 3526: 3150: 3128: 3102: 2813: 1723: 1394: 1208: 310: 122: 101: 4136: 3512: 3477: 2987: 2720: 2424: 1950: 1279: 1157: 1117: 1095: 796: 664: 636: 360: 1062:

per all of the above. Process was followed, WP:V is not a case for speedy deletion.

864:

consensus, this strikes me as heavy wikilawyering. This is a deletion review, not a

5476: 5460: 5397: 5361: 5356: 5290: 5263: 5131: 5085: 5036: 5017: 4967: 4918: 4903:- I think that it should stay on wikipedia. There is newspaper article about it. -- 4816: 4758: 4738: 4714: 4659: 4627: 4585: 4555: 4525: 4432: 4386: 4361: 4333: 4319: 4262: 4253: 4243: 4234: 4162: 4104: 4095: 4076: 4066: 4038: 3916: 3886: 3817: 3621: 3581:: Endorsing closure of the AFD would imply undeleting the article. Please clarify. 3538: 3534: 3463: 3351: 3297: 3248: 3227: 3177: 3001: 2840: 2703: 2649: 2581: 2535: 2515: 2481: 2446: 2396: 2281: 2223: 2171: 2116: 2057: 1753: 1688:

opinions and arguments made without knowledge of the source, and the source itself.

1516:

in that state that the article should remain while any other decisions are made. --

1321: 1245: 1217: 1131: 906: 869: 821: 728: 680: 649: 601: 520: 447: 314: 280: 224: 186: 145: 2322: 1990:. All the references are consistent with the "players" pretending to play it. — 5489: 5387: 5335: 5313: 5148: 5144: 4904: 4869: 4830: 4697: 4602: 4487: 4278:(and I never intended to imply that I thought it was), and I feel it borders on 3987: 3946: 3848: 3803: 3790: 3753: 3723: 3691: 3669: 3650: 3582: 3498: 3419: 3196: 2933: 2910: 2886: 2781: 2725: 2666: 2594: 2554: 2462: 1901: 1815: 1694: 1653: 1602: 1572: 1518: 1398: 1301: 1195: 952: 759: 72: 5069: 5035:

source. Calling it a "hoax" without a source would be unsourced speculation.

4418: 4211: 4052: 3878: 2972: 2634: 1471: 1420: 1081: 1044: 982: 165: 4466:

Count both options as closures, so the majority wins and the article is kept.

4092:

available for several days before the prior DRV discussion was finally closed

2633:

Is there any reason to have this discussion? Any way to just quit already? --

1630:

Should we beat them both with their own mops? I don't know; nor do I care.

1449: 1063: 342: 3016:

and slap with a trout the person who failed to follow up the last DRV with

5105:

if it were intially a hoax, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. —

4815:- It exists, there are plenty of sites noting it, just KEEP IT ALIVE !! -- 4449: 3972: 3937: 3638: 2338: 2087:

Close and revert to last status on which concensus was obtained (deleted)

93: 414:

wasn't good enough for the closer of the DRV, if you read the decision.

1270:, but I don't vote for his article to be deleted, and I very much like 902: 223:

Pseduo, if you could clarify, by Endorse Closure do you mean Restore?

4772:

There is a majority of "restore"s which (in most cases) refer to the

2318: 865: 3226:

that he was leaning towards delete before checking out the source.

309:

as I think the Belgian newspaper source allows the article to pass

5299: 4954:

by a significantly decent source. De Morgen is a big paper. But I

3802:

The article does only contain information provided by the source.

3323: 4459:

This DRV has been up for a week now; can we close the damn thing?

4252:

perhaps lend some credit towards the "social phenomenon" claim.

3101:

Then that's a case for discussion at the relevant talk pages of

901:

And if it were a talmud class, we'd have POV problems until the

2719:

I would argue that the latter is the case. Wikipedians tend to

2081:

I'm reviewing the deletion/undeletion status of the article --

261:

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes.--

2197:

couldn't find this one except by tracing links from here. —

4537:

article? Etc. Of the options suggested, only #2 and #4 have

2187:

Only if you can find it. I might concede this is the most

570:- looks like yet another case of Zoe disregarding policy. 3903:

Heh, I just noticed this is a DRV, not TfD. In such case,

3195:- even though I think the game is anti-constitution :D // 1684:

2. A closing admin basing his decision on a collection of

4639:

debate over the verifiability of the article's source. ~

1718:, after all...) decides that the source does not satisfy 4061:

whether this article is going to meet the standards for

5327: 5309: 4210:...Can you perhaps get a source? It'd help our case. -- 1513: 1506: 1487:

Really? "A children's game"? "Disgust"? Bizarre... -

1005:) 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) revised per admin request 905:

ends tomorrow and the Orthodox Jews can join us again.-

758:

I think he's saying Zoe's deletion was out of process.

4542:

course of action. "Going cowboy" is just perjorative.

2971:: It should not have been deleted in the first place. 2580:, mentioned only in one newspaper article? Heavens! -- 1851:

The admins discuss it between themselves (probably on

4950:

looking over this debate.. enough is enough already.

4130:

for an article but it does not mean we should accept

3752:

It was, I just wasn't sure how to put it in writing.

3264:

Is there any evidence that the newspaper article was

3149:

a newspaper source so there is no gross violation of

2247:

Irrelevant for multiple reasons, even if correct. —

2151:, with the same rules, but only open to Wikpedians — 1340:, clear abuse of admin privileges after AfD closure. 5050:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1896:

Exactly correct. I asked for an uninvolved admin on

4445:as per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy as cited by 2191:"the Game", but that doesn't mean it's prevelant. 1814:Who decides which admin gets to make the decision? 1080:

per most of the above. Deletion was unjustified. --

820:

Do we have a process for creating articles now? ;p-

1470:care about this article, dumb as its topic seems. 5484:I've posted a request for an uninvolved admin at 4135:not already a fan will ever look at the article. 4593:Egad! When I say "wikilawyer", I mean that as a 2661:Shhh. You're really encouraging wiki-lawyers to 1393:It has a verifiable source, it does not violate 5473:Request that someone get around to closing this 3830:. Nonsense. Non-verifyable per Just zis guy. -- 3645:, but the ends in this case justify the means. 5084:, so what exactly is your worry about hoaxes? 3493:be Knowledge (XXG) policy because it leads to 1722:and therefore the article still fails against 359:, article was deleted contrary to AfD result. 8: 4358:Knowledge (XXG) is not about emerging trends 3641:'s speedy deletion probably didn't meet the 5422:making any reference at all to a meme...). 5382:- Certainly this article now seems to meet 5306:unilaterally brought back from the dead on 3936:Belgian newspaper article is unimpressive. 3014:Keep deleted even though it's been restored 1678:There is a significant difference between: 295:Had citations and no consensus to delete.-- 244:edit-conflicted with you on fixing that. ~ 5243:Just get rid of this and be done with it. 4480:"Go cowboy" and speedy delete the article. 949:disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to make a point 126:and not supported by our deletion policy. 5235:Delete, redelete, keep deleted, whatever. 3319:Is there any evidence that you are not a 2317:answer any question about prevalence, as 4286:, but rather about the speedy delete. -- 3207:Endorse last valid closure, keep deleted 3125:Delete again and protect from recreation 3326:or that you actually exist, Mr. Rubin? 2983:Keep Deleted!! Let it Die Already!!!!! 185:wouldn't make it an unreliable source. 3881:is also a popular game. Yet, it lacks 96:even though the debate was closed as 7: 2337:, and then blanking and protecting 5410:The article has now been moved to 5126:status and since when was there a 4783:(a couple of edit conflicts later) 4103:I stand corrected on the timing. 3603:Clarified above as 'keep deleted' 1716:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy 1560:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy 24: 942:Oh god, not again. The result is 483:It was taken into consideration. 4901:Restore and protect from editing 4385:Either way, they aren't useful. 2442:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_Sources 1933:Endorse closure and keep/restore 1650:Endorse closure and keep deleted 4463:are a few options for closure: 3174:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy 1417:Endorse AfD closure and restore 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 4866:shove the beans up their noses 1661:establish article worthiness. 1: 4952:The article has been verified 4318:That seems reasonable to me. 3030:I'd have liked either of the 2440:I don't see what criteria on 164:, such as the one written by 44:The result of the review was 5414:(despite the absence of any 5147:to The Game is interesting. 5080:source and whether it meets 995:(regretfully) Keep undeleted 339:Ah shit I just lost The Game 293:Endorse closure and restore. 5380:Endorse closure and restore 5181:Endorse closure and restore 5169:Endorse closure and restore 4813:Endorse Closure and Restore 4415:Endorse closure and restore 4401:Endorse closure and restore 4179:Endorse closure and restore 3511:considered a valid journal. 3193:Endorse closure and restore 3170:Endorse closure and restore 3038:do not vote on verification 2969:Endorse closure and restore 2944:Endorse closure and restore 2930:Endorse closure and restore 2865:Endorse closure and restore 2810:Endorse closure and restore 2627:We just had this discussion 2459:Endorse closure and restore 1391:Endorse closure and restore 1357:Endorse closure and restore 1338:Endorse closure and restore 1318:Endorse closure and restore 1187:After the AfD is closed as 1174:Endorse closure and restore 1154:Endorse closure and restore 1114:Endorse closeur and restoar 1092:Endorse closure and restore 1078:Endorse closure and restore 1060:Endorse closure and restore 582:Article should be undeleted 568:Endorse closure and restore 357:Endorse closure and restore 307:Endorse closure and restore 205:nothing out of process here 201:Endorse closure and restore 5545: 5408:Comment and important note 4908:16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4859:12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4850:04:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4820:04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4804:06:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4781:03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4762:03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4742:21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4732:20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4709:16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4677:03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4644:06:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4631:06:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4622:04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4589:02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4576:02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4559:02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4547:02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4529:01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4520:01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 4507:15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 4453:02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 4436:23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4422:21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4408:19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4390:13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4378:12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4365:12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4349:12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4337:00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4323:13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4311:16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4291:23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 4266:14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4257:14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4247:13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4238:13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4224:06:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4215:16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4206:13:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4194:12:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4166:00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4144:09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4099:00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 4085:14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4070:07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4056:06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4047:02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4017:02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 4007:02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3976:01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3966:01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3941:00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3927:18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3897:18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3868:01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3843:17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3821:17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3807:15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3794:13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3780:Redelete, and keep deleted 3775:09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3757:21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3740:15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3727:15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3711:16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3678:12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3659:12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3625:17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3608:18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3591:12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3570:11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3542:16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3516:16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3502:15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3481:04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3467:21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3439:17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3392:23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3363:22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3331:20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3301:20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3279:18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3252:17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3236:12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3214:11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3200:10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3186:10:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3163:07:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3136:05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3127:-Dear Aaron sums it well. 3114:10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3089:07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3073:06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3055:05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3005:07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2991:04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2976:22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2962:20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2937:19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2921:13:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 2897:15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2876:10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2858:06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2821:03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2801:18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2763:07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2737:06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2707:05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2686:03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2663:stuff beans up their noses 2653:03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2638:22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2614:03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2585:21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2563:12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2539:00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2519:22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2502:22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2485:21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2466:21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2450:00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 2432:20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2400:21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2354:18:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2285:00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2256:22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2227:22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2206:21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2175:21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2160:19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2134:22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2098:22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2061:22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2040:21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2015:19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1975:19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1954:19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1940:18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1910:12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1860:17:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1819:17:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1786:01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1757:00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1731:00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1698:22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1666:20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1635:00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1606:22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1584:21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1547:17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1530:17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1492:17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1475:17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1457:16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1437:17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1424:16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1410:15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1384:15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1350:15:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1331:15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1305:21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1283:15:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1249:15:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1224:15:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1199:14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1191:, Zoe deletes the article. 1167:14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1147:13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1121:11:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1107:11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1085:09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1071:08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1053:08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 986:07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 972:06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 924:07:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 873:07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 839:07:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 800:06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 779:06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 746:06:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 727:an out of process action?- 715:06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 698:06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 668:06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 653:06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 640:06:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 622:17:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 605:06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 589:06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 575:05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 524:06:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 495:05:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 451:05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 426:05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 398:05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 385:05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 364:05:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 350:05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 332:05:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 300:04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 284:03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 268:06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 249:04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 228:04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 212:04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 190:23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 177:21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 149:04:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 131:04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 109:04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 81:12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 4471:snowball's chance in hell 3907:, since "failure to meet 2147:-- how a meta-game about 1652:I completely concur with 1156:per many comments above. 5521:Please do not modify it. 1935:per rpseer and others. 32:Please do not modify it. 5509:00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 5480:00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 5464:18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5451:18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5427:17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5401:00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5391:22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5365:15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5347:15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5324:15:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5294:14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5284:07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5267:06:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5255:21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5224:14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5215:21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5199:17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5188:17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5176:20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5152:15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5135:04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5114:03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 5089:23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5061:21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5040:21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5021:20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 5007:19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 4983:19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 4922:15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 4889:15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 4356:Groan. Absolutely not. 2905:. However, the lack of 1999:12:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1030:20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1015:20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 553:17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 58:02:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 3686:ArbCom doesn't accept 2753:. The closure of the 2327:Open Directory Project 482: 4966:have a wp:v issue. -- 3885:external references. 1397:, it should be kept. 476: 4933:The Name of the Game 3635:process is important 3131:is non-negotiable. - 1963:and (keep) delete(d) 1094:per Guettarda et al 4829:counterproductive. 725:the most recent AFD 4948:Comment (restore): 4534:More serious reply 3143:Leave it undeleted 1432:Good suggestion. - 4111: 4083: 4045: 3784: 3772:Hughcharlesparker 3160: 2883:Reluctant Endorse 2721:respect precedent 2578:social phenomenon 1566:knew better than 1402: 1348: 1128:Close and Restore 712: 471:From the closing 5536: 5523: 5506: 5503: 5496: 5493: 5345: 5323: 4980: 4972: 4886: 4883: 4876: 4873: 4847: 4844: 4837: 4834: 4729: 4723: 4717: 4707: 4674: 4668: 4662: 4619: 4616: 4609: 4606: 4504: 4501: 4494: 4491: 4188: 4140: 4107: 4079: 4041: 4004: 4001: 3994: 3991: 3963: 3960: 3953: 3950: 3924: 3894: 3865: 3862: 3855: 3852: 3837: 3783: 3708: 3705: 3698: 3695: 3495:infinite regress 3436: 3433: 3426: 3423: 3233: 3183: 3158: 3050: 3025: 3019: 2956: 2951: 2855: 2849: 2843: 2798: 2795: 2788: 2785: 2735: 2683: 2680: 2673: 2670: 2611: 2608: 2601: 2598: 2428: 2131: 2125: 2119: 1961:Endorse closure 1582: 1528: 1400: 1378: 1371: 1364: 1344: 1326: 1220: 1162: 1144: 1136: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1068: 969: 966: 959: 956: 921: 915: 909: 836: 830: 824: 776: 773: 766: 763: 743: 737: 731: 708: 695: 689: 683: 347: 329: 323: 317: 34: 5544: 5543: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5519: 5504: 5501: 5494: 5491: 5412:The Game (meme) 5343: 5334: 5321: 5312: 4976: 4968: 4929:Further comment 4884: 4881: 4874: 4871: 4845: 4842: 4835: 4832: 4727: 4721: 4715: 4705: 4696: 4672: 4666: 4660: 4617: 4614: 4607: 4604: 4502: 4499: 4492: 4489: 4186: 4138: 4002: 3999: 3992: 3989: 3961: 3958: 3951: 3948: 3920: 3890: 3863: 3860: 3853: 3850: 3835: 3706: 3703: 3696: 3693: 3434: 3431: 3424: 3421: 3231: 3181: 3048: 3023: 3017: 2954: 2949: 2918: 2894: 2873:KillerChihuahua 2853: 2847: 2841: 2832:The Game (game) 2796: 2793: 2786: 2783: 2733: 2724: 2681: 2678: 2671: 2668: 2609: 2606: 2599: 2596: 2426: 2393:The Game (game) 2389:The Game (meme) 2343:The Game (game) 2335:The Game (meme) 2323:Knowledge (XXG) 2129: 2123: 2117: 1580: 1571: 1526: 1517: 1376: 1369: 1362: 1322: 1278:, either way... 1268:Jeremy Clarkson 1218: 1213:reliable source 1158: 1140: 1132: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1064: 1041:Endorse closure 967: 964: 957: 954: 919: 913: 907: 834: 828: 822: 774: 771: 764: 761: 741: 735: 729: 693: 687: 681: 343: 327: 321: 315: 138:Endorse closure 115:Endorse closure 67: 64:The Game (game) 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5542: 5540: 5531: 5530: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5339: 5317: 5258: 5257: 5242: 5239: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5191: 5190: 5178: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5072:quote part of 5010: 5009: 4945: 4944: 4925: 4924: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4868:that quickly. 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4801:ZachPruckowski 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4764: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4734: 4701: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4522: 4510: 4509: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4474: 4467: 4460: 4456: 4455: 4439: 4438: 4425: 4424: 4411: 4410: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4339: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4308:ZachPruckowski 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4288:ZachPruckowski 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4230:ZachPruckowski 4196: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4058: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 3930: 3929: 3905:speedy restore 3900: 3899: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3824: 3823: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3797: 3796: 3777: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3730: 3729: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3681: 3680: 3662: 3661: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3573: 3572: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3519: 3518: 3505: 3504: 3484: 3483: 3470: 3469: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3321:kitten huffing 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3217: 3216: 3203: 3202: 3189: 3188: 3166: 3165: 3139: 3138: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3058: 3057: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2994: 2993: 2979: 2978: 2965: 2964: 2940: 2939: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2914: 2890: 2879: 2878: 2861: 2860: 2824: 2823: 2818:Captainktainer 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2729: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2656: 2655: 2641: 2640: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2588: 2587: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2488: 2487: 2469: 2468: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2435: 2434: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1978: 1977: 1957: 1956: 1943: 1942: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1682: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1576: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1533: 1532: 1522: 1510:illegitimately 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1460: 1459: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1427: 1426: 1413: 1412: 1387: 1386: 1353: 1352: 1334: 1333: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1202: 1201: 1192: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1170: 1169: 1150: 1149: 1124: 1123: 1110: 1109: 1088: 1087: 1074: 1073: 1056: 1055: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 991: 990: 989: 988: 975: 974: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 751: 750: 749: 748: 718: 717: 701: 700: 673: 672: 671: 670: 658: 657: 656: 655: 643: 642: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 610: 609: 608: 607: 592: 591: 578: 577: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 403: 402: 401: 400: 388: 387: 367: 366: 353: 352: 335: 334: 303: 302: 289: 288: 287: 286: 273: 272: 271: 270: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 233: 232: 231: 230: 215: 214: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 134: 133: 90: 89: 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5541: 5529: 5527: 5522: 5516: 5515: 5510: 5507: 5498: 5497: 5487: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5478: 5474: 5471: 5465: 5462: 5457: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5449: 5445: 5442:anywhere. — 5441: 5437: 5433: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5425: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5409: 5406: 5402: 5399: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5378: 5377: 5366: 5363: 5358: 5354: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5342: 5337: 5332: 5328: 5325: 5320: 5315: 5310: 5305: 5304:User:Ashibaka 5301: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5292: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5282: 5281: 5278: 5277: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5265: 5260: 5259: 5256: 5253: 5252: 5249: 5248: 5236: 5233: 5232: 5225: 5222: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5213: 5212: 5209: 5208: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5197: 5193: 5192: 5189: 5186: 5182: 5179: 5177: 5174: 5170: 5167: 5153: 5150: 5146: 5141: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5120: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5099: 5095: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5059: 5055: 5051: 5046: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5019: 5015: 5008: 5005: 5001: 4998:problems. — 4997: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4981: 4979: 4973: 4971: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4927: 4926: 4923: 4920: 4915: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4906: 4905:- pure ginger 4902: 4890: 4887: 4878: 4877: 4867: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4857: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4848: 4839: 4838: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4818: 4814: 4811: 4810: 4805: 4802: 4797: 4793: 4782: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4765: 4763: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4749: 4743: 4740: 4735: 4733: 4730: 4725: 4724: 4718: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4704: 4699: 4694: 4690: 4685: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4675: 4670: 4669: 4663: 4656: 4653: 4645: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4629: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4620: 4611: 4610: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4587: 4582: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4557: 4553: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4545: 4540: 4535: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4527: 4523: 4521: 4518: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4505: 4496: 4495: 4484: 4479: 4475: 4472: 4468: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4458: 4457: 4454: 4451: 4448: 4444: 4441: 4440: 4437: 4434: 4430: 4427: 4426: 4423: 4420: 4416: 4413: 4412: 4409: 4406: 4402: 4399: 4391: 4388: 4384: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4376: 4371: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4347: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4335: 4334:Richard Clegg 4331: 4328: 4324: 4321: 4317: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4305: 4302: 4292: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4267: 4264: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4236: 4231: 4228:I don't note 4227: 4226: 4225: 4222: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4213: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4203:HawkerTyphoon 4200: 4197: 4195: 4192: 4189: 4184: 4180: 4177: 4176: 4167: 4164: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4145: 4142: 4133: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4117: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4059: 4057: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4035: 4031: 4028: 4018: 4015: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4005: 3996: 3995: 3984: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3964: 3955: 3954: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3939: 3935: 3932: 3931: 3928: 3925: 3923: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3895: 3893: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3873: 3869: 3866: 3857: 3856: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3841: 3838: 3833: 3829: 3826: 3825: 3822: 3819: 3814: 3813: 3808: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3788: 3781: 3778: 3776: 3773: 3769: 3766: 3765: 3758: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3741: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3725: 3721: 3718: 3717: 3712: 3709: 3700: 3699: 3689: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3664: 3663: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3609: 3606: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3571: 3568: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3543: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3517: 3514: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3503: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3468: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3440: 3437: 3428: 3427: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3393: 3390: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3302: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3280: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3253: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3237: 3234: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3187: 3184: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3168: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3090: 3087: 3086:Phil Sandifer 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3074: 3071: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3056: 3053: 3051: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3033: 3029: 3022: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3006: 3003: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2984: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2966: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2957: 2952: 2945: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2931: 2928: 2927: 2922: 2917: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2881: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2844: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2802: 2799: 2790: 2789: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2764: 2761: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2738: 2732: 2727: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2708: 2705: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2684: 2675: 2674: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2651: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2639: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2615: 2612: 2603: 2602: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2540: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2470: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2430: 2422: 2419: 2418: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2257: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2228: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2161: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2135: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2120: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2099: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1758: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1636: 1633: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1607: 1604: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1585: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1568:everyone else 1565: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1548: 1545: 1540: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1525: 1520: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1500: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1380: 1379: 1373: 1372: 1366: 1365: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1325: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1306: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1219:Donald Albury 1214: 1210: 1209:verifiability 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1161: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1148: 1145: 1143: 1137: 1135: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1067: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022:Robert A.West 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007:Robert A.West 1004: 1000: 999:Robert A.West 996: 993: 992: 987: 984: 979: 978: 977: 976: 973: 970: 961: 960: 950: 945: 941: 940: 925: 922: 917: 916: 910: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 874: 871: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 840: 837: 832: 831: 825: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 801: 798: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 780: 777: 768: 767: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 747: 744: 739: 738: 732: 726: 722: 721: 720: 719: 716: 711: 706: 703: 702: 699: 696: 691: 690: 684: 678: 675: 674: 669: 666: 662: 661: 660: 659: 654: 651: 647: 646: 645: 644: 641: 638: 634: 631: 630: 623: 620: 619:Phil Sandifer 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 606: 603: 599: 596: 595: 594: 593: 590: 587: 586:Phil Sandifer 583: 580: 579: 576: 573: 569: 566: 565: 554: 551: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 525: 522: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 496: 493: 492: 489: 488: 481: 480: 474: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 452: 449: 444: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 427: 424: 423: 420: 419: 413: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 399: 396: 392: 391: 390: 389: 386: 383: 382: 379: 378: 372: 369: 368: 365: 362: 358: 355: 354: 351: 348: 346: 340: 337: 336: 333: 330: 325: 324: 318: 312: 308: 305: 304: 301: 298: 294: 291: 290: 285: 282: 277: 276: 275: 274: 269: 266: 264: 260: 259: 258: 257: 250: 247: 243: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 229: 226: 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 213: 210: 206: 202: 199: 198: 191: 188: 183: 180: 179: 178: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 151: 150: 147: 143: 139: 136: 135: 132: 129: 124: 120: 116: 113: 112: 111: 110: 107: 103: 99: 95: 88: 85: 84: 83: 82: 78: 74: 71: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 5520: 5517: 5490: 5472: 5455: 5444:Arthur Rubin 5435: 5431: 5418:-satisfying 5407: 5379: 5307: 5274: 5273: 5245: 5244: 5234: 5221:David.Mestel 5205: 5204: 5196:David.Mestel 5185:David.Mestel 5180: 5168: 5139: 5118: 5107:Arthur Rubin 5097: 5093: 5065: 5054:Arthur Rubin 5049: 5044: 5028: 5013: 5011: 5000:Arthur Rubin 4992: 4988: 4977: 4969: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4946: 4936: 4928: 4913: 4900: 4899: 4870: 4831: 4826: 4812: 4774:no consensus 4773: 4768: 4750: 4720: 4692: 4691:would cause 4688: 4683: 4665: 4654: 4636: 4603: 4594: 4580: 4568: 4563: 4551: 4538: 4533: 4488: 4447:the wub "?!" 4446: 4442: 4428: 4414: 4400: 4382: 4369: 4353: 4341: 4329: 4315: 4303: 4198: 4178: 4131: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4091: 4033: 4029: 3988: 3982: 3947: 3934:Keep deleted 3933: 3921: 3913:is not a CSD 3912: 3904: 3891: 3882: 3874: 3849: 3828:Keep deleted 3827: 3779: 3767: 3719: 3692: 3687: 3665: 3647:Keep deleted 3646: 3578: 3563:keep deleted 3562: 3490: 3420: 3356:Arthur Rubin 3352:Arthur Rubin 3272:Arthur Rubin 3266: 3265: 3211:Sam Blanning 3206: 3192: 3169: 3146: 3142: 3124: 3064: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3027: 3013: 2982: 2968: 2947: 2943: 2929: 2882: 2864: 2846: 2835: 2827: 2809: 2782: 2777: 2698: 2667: 2644: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2595: 2577: 2574:Keep deleted 2573: 2495:Arthur Rubin 2477:no consensus 2476: 2472: 2458: 2421:Keep deleted 2420: 2347:Arthur Rubin 2330: 2325:or from the 2314: 2249:Arthur Rubin 2199:Arthur Rubin 2193: 2192: 2188: 2153:Arthur Rubin 2148: 2144: 2122: 2091:Arthur Rubin 2086: 2082: 2033:Arthur Rubin 2029:keep deleted 2028: 1992:Arthur Rubin 1987: 1983: 1968:Arthur Rubin 1962: 1960: 1947:Keep deleted 1946: 1932: 1685: 1649: 1567: 1563: 1538: 1509: 1508:It was then 1502: 1467: 1445: 1416: 1390: 1375: 1368: 1361: 1356: 1337: 1323: 1317: 1272:Rosanagh Ker 1263: 1236: 1216: 1189:no consensus 1188: 1173: 1159: 1153: 1141: 1133: 1127: 1113: 1091: 1077: 1065: 1059: 1040: 994: 953: 944:very clearly 943: 912: 827: 760: 734: 704: 686: 676: 632: 597: 581: 567: 550:David.Mestel 485: 484: 478: 477: 442: 416: 415: 411: 375: 374: 370: 356: 344: 338: 320: 306: 292: 241: 220: 204: 200: 181: 170:Arthur Rubin 161: 157: 153: 141: 137: 118: 114: 98:No Consensus 97: 91: 69: 68: 45: 43: 31: 28: 5145:habituation 4342:Restore now 4125:mention in 3021:deletedpage 2149:the article 1752:consensus? 1686:out-of-date 1627:rouge admin 710:Pegasus1138 663:Not yet... 410:The single 92:Deleted by 5424:Kinitawowi 5308:March 27: 5070:Carl Sagan 4937:individual 4864:people to 4856:Kinitawowi 4641:PseudoSudo 4637:structured 4573:Kinitawowi 4544:Kinitawowi 4517:Kinitawowi 4375:Kinitawowi 4221:MikeHobday 3879:Tag (game) 3737:Kinitawowi 3605:MikeHobday 3567:MikeHobday 3111:Kinitawowi 2012:PseudoSudo 1937:Mangojuice 1857:Kinitawowi 1783:Kinitawowi 1728:Kinitawowi 1663:Kinitawowi 1363:The Minist 263:Sean Black 246:PseudoSudo 209:PseudoSudo 166:Dave Barry 87:Latest AFD 5526:talk page 4827:extremely 4693:bad blood 4346:Gatherton 4141:you know? 4137:Just zis 3155:Sjakkalle 3065:De Morgen 3049:brenneman 2429:you know? 2425:Just zis 1984:I give up 1658:brenneman 1489:GTBacchus 1434:GTBacchus 1276:bad faith 572:Guettarda 395:Guettarda 345:Cyde Weys 297:Primetime 37:talk page 5434:. It's 5276:Warpstar 5247:Warpstar 5207:Warpstar 4970:Alfakim 4684:fuck you 4261:Agreed. 4183:DarthVad 4030:Redelete 3643:criteria 3513:Tony Fox 3478:Tony Fox 3476:useless. 3159:(Check!) 2988:Tobyk777 2631:Stop it! 2473:Undelete 2339:The Game 2313:It does 1951:Tony Fox 1377:r of War 1342:Ashibaka 1280:Jdcooper 1237:Commment 1160:FloNight 1134:Alfakim 1118:Jdcooper 797:VegaDark 665:VegaDark 637:VegaDark 487:Warpstar 473:decision 418:Warpstar 377:Warpstar 361:VegaDark 242:honestly 119:restore? 5477:JoshuaZ 5461:JoshuaZ 5456:Comment 5432:Comment 5398:JoshuaZ 5362:JoshuaZ 5357:JoshuaZ 5291:JoshuaZ 5264:Darquis 5140:Comment 5132:JoshuaZ 5119:Comment 5094:Comment 5086:JoshuaZ 5066:Comment 5045:Comment 5037:JoshuaZ 5029:Comment 5018:Darquis 5014:Comment 4993:serious 4989:Comment 4919:JoshuaZ 4914:Comment 4817:SeanMcG 4796:WP:SNOW 4778:Kotepho 4759:Darquis 4751:Comment 4739:Darquis 4655:Comment 4628:JoshuaZ 4599:WP:LAME 4586:JoshuaZ 4581:Comment 4564:Comment 4556:JoshuaZ 4552:Comment 4526:JoshuaZ 4443:Restore 4433:llywrch 4387:JoshuaZ 4383:Comment 4370:Comment 4362:JoshuaZ 4354:Comment 4330:Restore 4320:JoshuaZ 4316:Comment 4304:Restore 4263:JoshuaZ 4254:Darquis 4244:JoshuaZ 4235:Darquis 4199:Restore 4163:Darquis 4105:Rossami 4096:Darquis 4077:Rossami 4067:Darquis 4039:Rossami 4014:Kotepho 3875:Restore 3840:ng Aili 3818:JoshuaZ 3768:Restore 3720:Comment 3666:Comment 3622:Darquis 3579:Comment 3539:JoshuaZ 3535:JoshuaZ 3464:JoshuaZ 3389:Kotepho 3328:Kotepho 3298:Darquis 3249:Darquis 3228:the wub 3178:the wub 3070:Kotepho 3043:educate 3002:Darquis 2955:Kendall 2916:Contrib 2892:Contrib 2828:Comment 2760:Kotepho 2755:3th AFD 2751:2nd AFD 2704:JoshuaZ 2699:Comment 2650:Darquis 2645:Comment 2623:Comment 2582:Pjacobi 2536:Darquis 2516:JoshuaZ 2482:Darquis 2447:Darquis 2397:JoshuaZ 2282:JoshuaZ 2224:JoshuaZ 2189:indexed 2172:Darquis 2145:Comment 2083:exactly 2058:JoshuaZ 1754:JoshuaZ 1632:Kotepho 1544:Kotepho 1539:Comment 1446:No vote 1324:Prodego 1264:Comment 1246:JoshuaZ 903:Shabbat 870:JoshuaZ 868:class. 723:How is 677:Comment 650:JoshuaZ 633:Comment 602:JoshuaZ 598:Comment 521:JoshuaZ 448:JoshuaZ 443:Comment 371:Comment 281:Darquis 240:Wow, I 225:JoshuaZ 221:Comment 187:JoshuaZ 182:Comment 158:article 154:Comment 146:JoshuaZ 142:restore 128:Kotepho 106:Kotepho 46:restore 5448:(talk) 5420:WP:RSs 5388:QmunkE 5149:Kernow 5111:(talk) 5058:(talk) 5004:(talk) 4569:always 4405:Jeremy 4280:WP:NOR 4109:(talk) 4081:(talk) 4043:(talk) 3804:Kernow 3791:Taxman 3754:Kernow 3724:Kernow 3670:Stifle 3651:Stifle 3583:Stifle 3499:Kernow 3491:cannot 3360:(talk) 3276:(talk) 3197:Gargaj 2973:me_and 2934:smably 2911:JiFish 2887:JiFish 2555:Stifle 2499:(talk) 2463:BryanG 2351:(talk) 2319:Google 2253:(talk) 2203:(talk) 2157:(talk) 2095:(talk) 2037:(talk) 1996:(talk) 1988:played 1972:(talk) 1902:Stifle 1816:Kernow 1695:Kernow 1603:Kernow 1503:Delete 1302:Kernow 1196:Kernow 866:talmud 705:Delete 412:source 174:(talk) 162:column 121:While 73:Stifle 50:bainer 5502:ɹəəds 5495:speer 5486:WP:AN 5353:WP:RS 5300:O RLY 5280:Rider 5251:Rider 5211:Rider 5052:. — 4978:talk 4956:would 4882:ɹəəds 4875:speer 4843:ɹəəds 4836:speer 4615:ɹəəds 4608:speer 4500:ɹəəds 4493:speer 4419:Gsham 4233:now. 4212:Kizor 4053:Kizor 4000:ɹəəds 3993:speer 3959:ɹəəds 3952:speer 3917:Misza 3887:Misza 3861:ɹəəds 3854:speer 3704:ɹəəds 3697:speer 3531:WP:RS 3432:ɹəəds 3425:speer 3324:robot 3107:WP:RS 2950:James 2907:WP:RS 2903:WP:RS 2869:point 2794:ɹəəds 2787:speer 2679:ɹəəds 2672:speer 2635:Kizor 2607:ɹəəds 2600:speer 2089:. — 1898:WP:AN 1853:WP:AN 1720:WP:RS 1472:Xoloz 1450:David 1421:Xoloz 1401:aniel 1242:WP:RS 1142:talk 1082:Kizor 1066:Grue 983:Kizor 965:ɹəəds 958:speer 772:ɹəəds 765:speer 713:---- 491:Rider 422:Rider 381:Rider 168:? — 160:or a 16:< 5440:WP:V 5416:WP:V 5384:WP:V 5333:. -- 5331:WP:V 5173:Peas 5128:WP:N 5124:WP:N 5103:WP:N 5082:WP:N 5078:WP:V 5074:WP:V 5033:WP:V 4996:WP:V 4964:will 4960:then 4941:WP:V 4755:WP:V 4716:Polo 4689:that 4661:Polo 4477:for: 4429:Huh? 4284:WP:V 4276:WP:V 4119:One' 4063:WP:V 4034:last 3909:WP:V 3787:WP:V 3674:talk 3655:talk 3587:talk 3527:WP:V 3232:"?!" 3182:"?!" 3151:WP:V 3133:Zero 3129:WP:V 3105:and 3103:WP:V 3028:that 2842:Polo 2814:WP:V 2778:last 2576:. A 2559:talk 2341:and 2331:part 2118:Polo 2031:. — 1906:talk 1724:WP:V 1454:Talk 1395:WP:V 1346:tock 1103:sch 1097:Jim 1043:. -- 1026:Talk 1011:Talk 1003:Talk 908:Polo 823:Polo 730:Polo 682:Polo 316:Polo 311:WP:V 140:and 123:WP:V 117:and 102:WP:V 77:talk 54:talk 48:. -- 5446:| 5436:not 5336:phh 5314:phh 5109:| 5056:| 5002:| 4974:-- 4962:we 4698:phh 4595:bad 4539:any 4450:MrD 4431:-- 4139:Guy 4127:one 4123:one 3983:one 3973:Phr 3938:Phr 3883:any 3688:big 3639:Zoe 3529:or 3358:| 3274:| 3267:not 3032:two 2726:phh 2427:Guy 2391:, 2349:| 2315:not 1994:| 1654:phh 1573:phh 1519:phh 1138:-- 172:| 104:". 94:Zoe 5505:ɹ 5499:/ 5338:(/ 5316:(/ 5098:is 5012:"* 4885:ɹ 4879:/ 4846:ɹ 4840:/ 4799:-- 4722:te 4700:(/ 4667:te 4618:ɹ 4612:/ 4503:ɹ 4497:/ 4132:un 4065:. 4003:ɹ 3997:/ 3962:ɹ 3956:/ 3922:13 3915:. 3911:" 3892:13 3877:. 3864:ɹ 3858:/ 3707:ɹ 3701:/ 3676:) 3657:) 3649:. 3589:) 3533:. 3497:. 3435:ɹ 3429:/ 3224:AN 3176:. 3147:is 3024:}} 3018:{{ 2919:) 2913:(/ 2895:) 2889:(/ 2871:. 2848:te 2797:ɹ 2791:/ 2728:(/ 2682:ɹ 2676:/ 2665:. 2625:. 2610:ɹ 2604:/ 2561:) 2497:| 2251:| 2201:| 2155:| 2124:te 2093:| 2035:| 1970:| 1908:) 1900:. 1575:(/ 1564:he 1521:(/ 1468:do 1452:| 1408:) 1100:62 1051:) 1028:) 1013:) 981:-- 968:ɹ 962:/ 951:. 914:te 829:te 775:ɹ 769:/ 736:te 688:te 341:-- 322:te 203:; 79:) 56:) 5528:? 5492:r 5344:) 5341:c 5322:) 5319:c 4872:r 4833:r 4728:t 4706:) 4703:c 4673:t 4605:r 4490:r 4191:r 4187:e 3990:r 3949:r 3851:r 3836:a 3832:F 3694:r 3672:( 3653:( 3585:( 3422:r 2854:t 2784:r 2734:) 2731:c 2669:r 2597:r 2557:( 2194:I 2130:t 1904:( 1581:) 1578:c 1527:) 1524:c 1406:☎ 1404:( 1399:D 1370:e 1176:. 1049:t 1047:( 1045:W 1024:( 1009:( 1001:( 955:r 920:t 835:t 762:r 742:t 694:t 475:: 328:t 75:( 52:( 39:?

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

Knowledge (XXG)

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

Index