Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamer's intuition

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer's intuition

Unsourced, looks like original research. At some point deteriorates into a description of a game some guys once played. Contested prod. Weregerbil 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced (and likely unsourceable), violates WP:NOR, and just plain flipping fuzzy. Wonder upon what grounds the prod was contested? RGTraynor 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if you are a slight illiterate. The paragraphs under Pure Pwnage are meant as an example of the given subject. Otherwise I'd hate to think I was dealing with an overzealous internet atricle purist (as I've dealt with before). - Tacitus666, creator of Gamer's Intuition article

Delete as unsourced (and likely unsourceable), violates WP:NOR. Vizjim 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please remember WP:NPA. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! I had no problem reading WP:NPA, but the others are too complicated for me to go through. You seriously expect new users to go through all of these and perhaps MORE before they sign up? By the way, that wasn't written as a personal attack. Now if I can just find some way to get those sources back... - Tacitus666, creator of Gamer's Intuition article

Comment - Why, yes, we do. A gamer ought not have trouble with the concepts that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has standards for admission and inclusion, that articles need to conform to those standards, and that editors have rules by which they ought to abide as well. Those unwilling to learn about those standards run the perpetual risk of their articles being heavily edited or shot down as a result, in much the same fashion that console gamers who don't learn about the games they play do. RGTraynor 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Bite my tongue. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unverifiable original research. Gw e rnol 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable original research, and a neologism to boot (10 Google hits, nothing relevant). Docether 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starts "The term "gamer's intuition" is a loose and rather debatable one". You got that right, anyway... WP:NOR. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BITE our tongues. Tyrenius 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.