The result of the debate was DELETE.
For its size, this debate is astonishingly good-humoured. Clearly, for me to write a closure that deals with each editor's comments individually is impractical, and would not be useful. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from reading this (yes, I did) that those who would delete really do have things on their side. SlimVirgin's points are easily the best argued reason for keeping, but many of those arguing to keep use, for the most part, arguments that really are just weak. Those who say "we keep sexual perversions and Pokemon" are certainly the weakest: as ever, those points belong in other debates and are not very useful in dealing with this article since they are referencing unrelated topics. Several other "keep" interpretations are successfully rebutted: Jayjg's and Yamaguchi's (the latter urging us to keep based on his/her personal speculations), Zer0faults's, and the key parts of DyslexicEditor's; various editors cite these also. Mackensen appears to be making an obscure point about trolls, and anyway relies on a rebutted argument. Perhaps he means that we should keep it to prove to the more trollish parts of the world that we are able to turn their work against them, but we don't need to prove that to them: we have 1,000,000 articles to show them. Stephen B Streater's is almost self-contradictory and the later editor who relies on it equally so. Dread Lord Cyberskull seems to comment solely on the nomination, rather than taking account of all the editors who went before him. (There are various phrasings of most of these.)
Some of the delete arguments are weak too, though, most particularly that the article is associated with "disruption". SlimVirgin makes a point to Blnguyen that we have many articles about people to which things have happened, and that is an important statement. But the various characterisations as a storm in a teacup, a minor incident, self-referentiality, news reportage are signally unrebutted by anyone; noone even seems to make an attempt to disagree with them. Even, (dare I say it) the (non-)notability of the individual isn't really contested, with no impugning of Phil Sandifer intended. The point in response to DavidGerard's comment is important. If this topic has made multiple headlines (it is unreasonable to use a continuous tense here) in a month, say, then perhaps we can reconsider. In the meantime, if Wikimedia needs to report on this at all, Wikinews: is just down the road. Also observe that there remains the possibility of adding part of a sentence in generic terms to some more-obviously useful article about real-life harassment of project volunteers.
Now, I suppose I am about to outrage approximately 41 people, but really I don't think there's a lot of value in a Wikipedia:Deletion review at this moment, unless someone really thinks I have this totally wrong and that it needs to be fixed urgently. It got speedied and restored repeatedly (in a rather poor manner), has been through DRV and had probably the most comprehensive, blood-free AfD of any article ever, and trying to turn the handle again right now is unlikely to achieve anything much. I'm not trying to appoint myself as the Final Authority, but the avenues are largely exhausted until such time as something about this shifts so significantly that a large proportion of 108-ish people have their minds changed.
Finally, a procedural note. I didn't participate here, but have followed the debate with interest. I did, some days ago, reverse an early closure of the debate, a course of action supported on the talk page. I don't think that re-opening a debate that (evidently) had reasonable mileage left in it leaves me with a conflict of interest, particularly as I have not otherwise joined the discussion; it was more interesting to follow it as it progressed and weigh the arguments. If you got this far, thank you for reading. -Splashtalk 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]