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 delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blocks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be self-promotion. No proof of notability. Octane (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not self promotion. For reference, please see: www.grngecko.com/torment.html fidnru (talk) 7:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— fidnru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not self-promotion. An article meant to juxtapose knowns against speculation. It is of note as the puzzle has had 32000 submissions, all wrong. Many have tried, none have succeeded over the course of 3 years. Ekansadakaj (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)— Ekansadakaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No 3rd Party Reliable sources found. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable and independent sources that demonstrate the notability of this puzzle. Given its title, Google searching is difficult. If someone can find decent sources, I could change my mind. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search "grngecko torment" on google to see the sheer number of communities the have tried their hand at this puzzle. Most threads go to page 50 and beyond, and there are plenty of different websites that do so.Ekansadakaj (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: User:Ekansadakaj is the author of the page and is a SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did that and I found a lot of blogs and message boards. Perhaps you can provide links to reliable sources about this puzzle. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first thought was that this was a band made up of Wikipedia administrators. Ekans does raise a good point-- there are things that "go viral" on the internet world without being noticed by the mainstream press until much later, if at all, but it's almost impossible to quantify. I do have some problems with the text in this case, especially the spammy stuff and the part about "it was discovered in 2007". Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, if that bothers you. It was published in 2007. I have to agree that "discovered" is the wrong word to use. Feel free to edit at your disposal with little things like this.Ekansadakaj (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see if there's anything left to edit. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopeless article, full of WP:spam promotion and how-to instructions and minute, minute detail about how to play. Lots of it is written in "we" and "you" voices. The article even tries to justify its own existence by citing "arguably, one of the biggest reasons this article should exist." No reliable sources given or found. No confirmation of anything except blog evidence that the thing exists and some people are trying to solve it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You manage to find everything wrong with the article while ignoring anything useful the article provides. Most, if not all information can be rewritten an in objective voice. "What we Know" is "What is Known". If you need confirmation it exists, click the link. "Some" people is a rather large quantity. I see many opinions in your argument. Ekansadakaj (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is not how the article is written. The issue is that it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a WP:COI between the author and the subject matter which also raises the possibility of a vested interest in seeing this article retained. Even if it were re-written objectively however, no third party sources necessary to establish notability have been found. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (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.