Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (mind game)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep per WP:SNOW. Article is sourced, nom seems a little WP:POINTy. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Game (mind game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just because there are references doesn't mean the game is notable. I definitely think that it is a deltion policy violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipotassitrimanganate (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. I think you're going to need a more specific deletion rationale to counter the arguments made at the last Deletion review for the article. My keep is per the arguments there. --Maxamegalon2000 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Lots of people I know (including myself, thanks for making me lose;)) play this game, and and it is clearly notable. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established via the multiple reliable sources in the article. The nomination seems rather WP:IDONTLIKEITish.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to comfortably fulfil even a strict interpretation of our notability requirements. Substantial coverage in at least four major reliable-source newspapers seems ample, and the demonstrable pervasiveness of this game in youth culture certainly implies that our notability standards are doing their job well. I'd appreciate some elaboration from the nominator on what problems they see with this article's inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~ mazca  t 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cultural phenomenon. Last deletion review showed an overwhelming consensus to allow this article to exist, and I see no evidence that consensus has changed in the intervening 9 months. JulesH (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Agree that the nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.