Lost the game?

[mrph]

It's ok, the game doesn't actually exist. Well, not verifiably. According to Wikipedia, that is.

Sorry.

Comments

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Well... their point isn't technically that it can't be described as "notable", but rather that it doesn't meet the pre-defined Wikipedia policy for "notability." It's a slight difference but an important one. There's no denial of the fact that The Game exists, just a legitimate indication that it's existence it might not be encyclopedic information.

The problem, at the end of the day, is that life exists in shades of grey, but rules generally have to be black and white. Opening them to extensive personal interpretation in a community the size of "internet users" is pretty much the same as having no regulation at all.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Note that notability isn't an official policy (like verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are), but one which a lot of editors tend to agree with. It looks like it had trouble being verifiable though, too.

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Well, I only really pointed to the Notability because of the "not very notable" quip in the initial comment. There's any number of reasons/indicators being quoted, most of which resonate... that was just an example of rationale. The "deletes" tend to cite a wide range, whereas the "keeps" seem to be mostly unverifiable "But I've heard of it!"s...

Really, one of the more persuasive arguments, to my mind, is the consensus of previous deletion discussion to not only delete, but also not allow a re-start the article without pre-established consensus in discussion... that and the coordinated attempt specifically to artificially sway the results.

Given the history, I think salting the earth was the best idea, really.