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.
Delete - Looking through sources to try to assess notability or even come up with the idea of the "Jerusalem Syndrome" in games, I can't see anything that's not original research. Plenty of stuff for Jerusalem syndrome, but that's an entirely different subject. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a place for inventing terms. It can be recreated if it is covered by reliable sources in the future, who don't appear to cover it now. -- Sabre (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion - Wikipedia have right to have page about a recent phenomenom, and there is always an possibility of merge in case this phenomenom might get different official name (unlikely). Honestly, when an article Paris syndrome - psychopathology has right to be at wikipedia, this article has right to be at wikipedia as well. At worst it should be prefixed by tag "This article talks about recent phenomenon, thus citations from scientific articles from trusted sources like arstechnica.net are unavailable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am uncomfortable with phrasing inclusion as something that an article must earn, rather than something that we decide together to be for Wikipedia's gain or detriment. The former can lead to the so-very-common phenomenon of RC patrollers flaying valid articles in need of attention instead of adding to them, and AfDs split into prosecution and defense (at which point we can just blow up the encyclopedia and go home.) Problem is, the latter approach does not improve the article's situation, either. Our basic principles are verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources because this environment cannot work without them. According to all these, a topic needs more proof than its own say-so. We can't publish original thought. If we did, we'd be up in our earlobes in EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. [1] Okay, so that's objectionable for a whole lot of other reasons, but for another example there are a lot of fascinating, intuitive and utterly wrong home-made physics theories. Let those in without requiring proof and, barring everyone on the planet spontaneously developing great media criticism and wiki editing skills, the site's value goes straight down the toily. Judge on a case by case basis? How would we prove or disprove this article? We can't at the moment, and there seems to be no way to fix that, so it can't work on WP.
Notability is a separate beast that I'd rather not invoke. With characteristic naivete, I hope that this makes sense to you, Raghar. --Kizor19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a neologism. The article also has no real hope of growth because only a very small percentage of releases are incomplete or not fully cracked. Due to the nature of the subject matter there is also no hope of verifiable references to reliable sources. GarrettTalk04:05, 7 June 2008 (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.