My "rebuttal" was actually that I liked that entire list of things, and I can only see Wikipedia being better for including information on all of those topics (along with appropriate visualization to demonstrate the inability to as easily trust the content that has had fewer editors, something you need anyway to solve the "subparagraph of article 4" problem).
Honestly, I thereby cannot see one thing in your most recent comment that actually responds to either of those contentions; again, to be highly repetitive on purpose: 1) that those things are not inherently bad, and 2) that there are better ways of solving verifiability for both articles and paragraphs (the latter of which being important).
(Also, on the off-chance this wasn't clear to anyone: the actual articles are deleted permanently. What is archived publicly is only the argument regarding the deletion, which is often just "I don't think it has enough sources", "I think it counts", "no, it didn't", as in the case with the article Jason Scott is complaining about today: without the actual text of the article or what the references even were, you cannot judge for yourself. I maintain this is inexcusable for a project with Wikipedia's charter.)
* Those articles are extremely likely to be inaccurate, because nobody outside the very small number of people with firsthand knowledge about them can verify them.
* It's manifestly obvious that those articles would quickly overwhelm the encyclopedia with obviously bullshit content; again, just look to the absolutely enormous quantity of totally ridiculous articles logged, complete with deletion debates, on the AfD link I provided.
* The articles themselves would spark huge time-wasting debates about placement and weighting, which is something that already happens with verifiable articles.
* A huge incentive exists to push vanity content onto WP because of its prominence on the Internet.
I already made these arguments: I do not see you responding to them; I, and other people on this thread, do not agree with your personal assertion regarding how the site will be "overwhelmed", so that is not an argument unless you can provide actual evidence that an infinite number mostly-pointless articles will cause Wikipedia harm. The closest you come is jut asserting that people will overly trust it, not why or whether deletionism is a better fix than my proposal.
(edit:) You also should tie the response back to the game in question: even if many of these spam articles should be culled, maybe the barrier to culling should simply be higher, in order to decrease the false positive rate. That was the argument made at the very top of this thread and, you know what?... you seemed to ignore it as well, as you only seem to care about the one issue: whether crap could exist and whether the site could get a lot of it if it had no filters at all... that isn't even controversial (and to the extent that it is, it seems to mainly be surrounding whether the specific things in your list were crap, not whether one could imagine something that was truly worthy of being deleted, even "speedily").
Unfortunately for that rebuttal to my comment, AfDs on Wikipedia are archived:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/#{ YEAR }_#{ MONTH }_#{ DAY }
For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...
You will, perusing these pages at random, discover a couple things:
* There are a LOT of terrible articles submitted to Wikipedia every day
* The examples I provided upthread are representative of what Wikipedia actually deals with.
* An astounding amount of effort goes into diligently handling those articles on a case-by-case basis.
A few months ago, another "deletionism" freakout on HN happened when a famous SEO expert's friend found her article deleted, and the SEO expert wrote an angry blog post. In discussing the incident on HN, two things emerged: first, the erstwhile WP subject was not in fact notable, and second, in handling the AfD for the article, before any media attention had landed on that particular debate --- that is, while that AfD was just another routine debate --- a Wikipedia volunteer actually took the time to look up the library circulation numbers for a book the subject had ostensibly published.