I put this article up for deletion review last month but it seems that I didn't make my reason clear enough.
This article existed and fully complied with Wikipedia policy for over a year until policy changed to require multiple sources. At the time of the change this article only had one known published source, in the Belgian newspaper the De Morgen, and as such was deleted. You need to be able to read Dutch and be a member of the website to see the online version of the article here but there is a photo of the printed version here. The De Morgen has a daily circulation of over 50,000 copies as well as being online.
Recently a second newspaper article has been published (the online version is here) meaning that this article now fully complies with all Wikipedia policies. The notability of The Game was not in question (please read the old AfDs). Most importantly this article now has multiple sources, the prior lack of which was the only reason for deletion.
As such this article should be recreated. None of the "Endorse deletion" votes in last month's DRV were supported by Wikipedia policy. Many claimed that because the second source is a college newspaper it is somehow not valid. I can find nothing supporting this in either WP:V or WP:Reliable sources.
If you are going to vote for "Endorse deletion" in this DRV please quote Wikipedia policy that supports it.
Don't imagine this will be open long, but I'll offer my endorse deletion response, all the same. WP:RS says that "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." In short, it is the opinion of the DRV contributors that a college newspaper in Nebraska is not in a position to be "trustworthy" or "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" regarding a supposedly world-wide game and social meme. That's largely the same problem associated with the De Morgen "article". It reads more like a letter to the editor or an editorial-page one-off than the product of professional journalism. It does not convey trust or authority on the issue. Furthermore, because Wikipedia's editors have been made aware of an organized external campaign to influence the encyclopedia regarding this article, the application of standards will be held to a higher bar. The pages discussing these issues are here and here. Finally, the agressive attempts to return this to DRV (or add it into the disambiguation page) do not endear editors to the concept; Wikipedia is not necessarily obligated to include every topic that de facto meets the inclusion policies. Serpent's Choice 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you don't trust the sources if you are unaware of all the evidence brought up in previous AfD discussions that support them. For example, 50,000+ players on Facebook [1], over 150,000 unique hits on LoseTheGame.com. As for the "organized external campaign", this should in no way influence whether or not this article should exist. Anyone could start such a campaign about any article, it doesn't invalidate the existence of the article. Finally, my returning this to DRV is not meant to be aggressive, I am following what I believe to be the correct procedure. I am simply trying to get all my points across directly and clearly. I genuinely apologise if you find this aggressive. Kernow 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This DRV was just deleted by User:Doc glasgow saying "been there, done that - now learn to take NO for an answer". I was under the impression that DRVs need to be closed by an administrator, not completely deleted. Kernow 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This list was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing. This list was part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) This was the only county list that was deleted of all of the county lists for Arizona, which leaves as erious hole in our coverage. It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not have been deleted. An additional note, I screwed up process and undeleted this and brought it to AfD. When it was pointed out that this was the wrong thing to do, I re-deleted it and brought it here. Dsmdgold 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak undelete I'm the person who pointed out that he acted in error in using his Admin power to undelete an article that he was personally involved with. (I wouldn't have minded an admin undoing a bad deletion, but the problem was that it was an article he worked on previously.) But I felt the list was worth keeping---just that the AfD process wasn't the proper channel to re-list it.Balloonman 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Prod deletions must be overturned with any objections, so why would undeleting it be te wrong thing to do? -Amarkovmoo! 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the argument would be that, if only for transparency's sake, the individual retroactively contesting the PROD ought not to be the same individual who actually undeletes and that the former ought to act as any non-admin contesting a deletion (viz., he ought to ask the deleting admin to undelete or ought to come to DRV for speedy undeletion); I imagine one might also suggest that where an admin undeletes a PROD sua sponte, the original PRODder is less likely to discover undeletion (in other instances, a notation of retroactive contesting would be made here or on an undeleting admin's talk). Of course, I don't find those concerns to be at all persuasive, but I can understand why one might. In any case, undeletion is obviously counseled here. Joe 06:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would sound like pointless bureacracy. I'll undelete. --pgk 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
