English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep WHAT!??!!! Deleting Sonic: The Fated Hour is one thing, but Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX is definitely notable! It showed up on TV, for crying out loud! How can anybody be considering deleting this article?!?!!??? I'm off to contact Blaze... Just you wait!!!! --Luigifan 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously my vote is strong keep, I mean, G4TV dedicated an entire segment of Attack of the Show to the game - that passes notability. And what about bandwidth? Over 300,000 downloads and 7 terrabytes of bandwidth. Surely, that, too, passes notability. Most commercial games are considered a success when they sell over 250,000 copies of a game; well, 300,000 people have acquired my game. I need to say nothing further on the matter. BlazeHedgehog 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to WP:SOFTWARE, to pass notability, this game must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." As far as I can tell, Attack of the Show is the only such example -- and that show often runs segments on things like Flash movies, Internet memes, "cool websites," and other assorted non-notable, non-encyclopedic ephemera. Add to that a bit of a vanity concern and I think we have a clear delete. No hard feelings, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of cool games and links. Andre (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It was NOT just Attack of the Show. Several gaming websites gave it great reviews, as well, and possibly even a few magazines. Face it, the game's famous. Delete the article, and you're probably going to have your head ripped off by a horde of rabid fans. --Luigifan 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • These reviews and magazines are not cited. Andre (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (formerly Weak keep) per Attack of the Show coverage and claim of having "been featured in many magazines". These magazines need to actually be cited within the article to "count", but it's a start. Weak keep for now, with the possibility of a full keep or weak delete depending on how the magazine coverage thing turns out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have updated my vote. Per below, it seems the magazine coverage is trivial and a mention on Attack of the Show apparently isn't such a big deal after all. I'd also like to point out that the conduct of the article's supporters on this Afd has been truly abysmal. Granted, that is certainly no reason to delete in and of itself, but it certainly doesn't help what is already a borderline case at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The game was also in numerous published magazines. The number of downloads, and bandwidth it's used should be more than enough to take care of it's notability.

And Andre... You saying, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory for cool games and links" is so hypocritical. The majority of the wiki articles would never appear in a published encyclopedia, and you can't keep trying to make wiki a, "Standard Encyclopedia" because it's obviously become much more than that. --Ashuku 00:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what hypocrisy is involved here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be encyclopedic. Also, observers, please note that this user has under 50 edits. Andre (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Its hypocritical because there are tons of articles on wikipedia like this, which are just as notable, and get keeps all the time. And if you read what I said, I clearly called it, "Much more than a standard encyclopedia".

Also, stating that I have under 50 edits was ignorant. Since when does the amount of edits I have reflect on my knowledge of wikipedia. Or Anything for that matter? Thats like saying a higher post count on a forum makes you a better member.

I read articles, and thats all that should matter. Fuck you and your edit count. --Ashuku 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit counts are an important aspect of AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Suffrage. Andre (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And, how does that matter? Like I said, Andre, you're outnumbered... Blaze and I are both respectable users. I don't see how you can expect to win. --Luigifan 01:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashuku, I said pretty much the same thing as you... only with fewer profanities. --Luigifan 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want, or need, an idiot like you, who vandalizes user pages, to try and defend me. --Ashuku 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Trivial" is such a broad term, though. What Person A considers trivial, Person B may not. What about Kotaku? Voted the number one gaming blog for Spike TV's Videogame Awards 2005. They mentioned MarioWeen when it first came out, too. Googling it returns 264,000 sites. Is that trivial to you? Because it's not trivial to me. I'll try to find the magazine scans I have (I saved most of them, but not in a unified folder or anything, and they lack identifying file names, so it's going to take me a while to track them down). Also, Luigifan: Chill out. BlazeHedgehog 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Triviality is not in reference to the source itself, but the nature of the mention. Gaming blogs in particular are not reliable sources for notability. They also have a strong tendency to, like Attack of the Show, write about non-notable ephemera. Andre (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I want to see this magazine coverage actually cited in the article. I'm seeing a lot of general claims but very few specifics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you mean it lacks specifics? I didn't know I was supposed to list every single last magazine that had a blurb of my game in it. I listed the bigger name ones I could think of; GamesMaster, for example, the largest gaming magazine in the UK. BlazeHedgehog 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The GamesMaster mention is clearly trivial - it's just one sentence and a screenshot. It is not sufficient to establish any sort of notability. Andre (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Trivial to you, maybe. But hey, a mention is a mention, as far as I'm concerned, and combined with G4 and Kotaku...? Come on, now. BlazeHedgehog 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure hardcore gamer magazine, and EGM had little tidbits with it in them. --Ashuku 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This is not sufficient to establish notability. Andre (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Calm down, guys. Blaze said he's get the magazines, it was just going to take a while. Don't lose your heads over this!!!! --Luigifan 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You should probably take your own advice =P --Ashuku 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• You're alone, Andre... allooonnnnneeeeeeee... Do you feel the sunshine? --Luigifan 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep How could this possibly be up for being deleted? It's incredibly popular. If you take this down, then start taking down THOUSANDS more that aren't being considered right now. --71.193.47.23 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about thousands, but I just nominated quite a few fangames. See Special:Contributions/Andrevan. Andre (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There. [[User:Andrevan#ANDREVAN IS A FANGAME HATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|I believe I've made my point]]... I'm terribly sorry that I had to resort to vandalism, but Andre isn't listening to reason. --Luigifan 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luigifan refers to this diff in which he vandalized my user page. Please do not vandalize user pages. Andre (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Luigifan, you're a tard. Vandalizing someones user page isn't going to make the article not get deleted.--Ashuku 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• By itself, that wasn't meant to change his mind; only to get his attention, and to make him realize what sort of impression he was giving. --Luigifan 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Luigifan, your actions on this AFD are possibly doing more harm for my case than good. Please refrain from acting like a spastic kindergardener and let the big boys debate what matters. I don't need a cheerleader. BlazeHedgehog 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ':< Oops... --Luigifan 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that 95% of fan-made games are not notable, but this is one of those few exceptions. It was even featured on Attack of the Show. TJ Spyke 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • A, TJ... you're the guy trying to squash SRB2!!! Well, I'm glad you like Marioween. Just a warning; Andrevan tends to ignore logic and reasoning. Even after I gave him a wake-up call. --Luigifan 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ig yqzs 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Itsame Delete Luigifan needs to calm the hell down. Danny Lilithborne 02:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I let myself get riled up, and that's my fault; I'll readily admit that I overreacted. However, Andrevan's being a bigot. He refuses to change his point of view, even with me, Blaze, and several others prodding solid evidence of this game's notability up his eyeballs. I've already calmly warned him to give us a fair shake. If Andrevan ignores this, he will suffer the consequences. --Luigifan 02:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You obviously haven't calmed down. Don't sling threats around. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not understand what you want me to do. I still don't believe you have evidence of notability as per WP:SOFTWARE. Attack of the Show appears to be the only non-trivial mention (and even it is possibly quite trivial) and certainly the GamesMaster mention is trivial. I am not about to change my vote. Andre (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Gamesmaster is only trivial to you because you're not British. And because you're determined to see things your way. It's the top gaming magazine in the UK; sure it only got a page's worth, but for a fangame, that's impressive. You say we've behaved poorly; well, I've called in UnDeRsCoRe, and he should be able to evaluate that. Like I said, I realize that I let myself get carried away; however, I'm not slinging threats around. I'm merely stating that Andrevan should be more open-minded, and that I'm prepared to act should he fail to develop this virtue. --Luigifan 02:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • • As I said earlier, triviality is not measuring the importance of the publication, but the prominence of the mention. The mention of this fangame was one sentence with no exposition or explanation. Andre (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Man, what did I tell you? Knock it off. You aren't helping me at all. BlazeHedgehog 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It's about time I stepped into the shadows... the Ninja of Peace will help you from afar... Do not worry, Blaze. Andrevan will treat you as an equal before long. --Luigifan 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Strong Keep- Why on earth should this be deleted?! I mean, for one, it has been featured on magazines and a TV show, dosen't that qualify it as notable?! If we manage to find the said magazines then BOOM! we have a winner. Anyway, everyone (or mostly everyone) here thinks it's notable, and most "discussions" for deletion usually are decided by the number of people who think it is notable. And, no offense, Luigifan, you shouldn't go to such extremes. I don't wanna sound like I'm nagging, but it'll do more damage than good if you do that. Try to be civillized and maybe we'll be able to hold up a persusive argument. I mean, I wouldn't agree with someone who vandalized a page or is using profanity. If you vandalize and yell, how does that make you any better than those you are against? (I sound like something out of the Bible. I feel so cliched.) UnDeRsCoRe 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
              • As I said, for now, I am content to watch from afar... and to step in when needed. The Ninja of Peace will assist you from afar. --Luigifan 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding anything more than the GamesMaster scan. It WAS mentioned in Hardcore Gamer Magazine, but it was really trivial - one of the editors mentioned it under "Games I am playing this month". Which really, really sucks. I thought I at least copied the images in when I packed up the MarioWeen source and burned it to a CD, but they aren't there, either. I don't know where else to look unless I go through each and every individual image on my HDD - of which there are thousands. It would take me weeks (possibly even months) to go through them all. BlazeHedgehog 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'm sorry to hear that. Until then, I think we're left with a lack of notability. Andre (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Keep in mind, the standards for a fangame are different than the standards for a commercial game. If this game had actually been released by Nintendo, it would have been all over the news. --Luigifan 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, since there are no citations anyway. Weak delete --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a picture of that G4 show in the article. That's good enough to classify it as a way to "prove" something. UnDeRsCoRe 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough, see WP:CITE on how to add citations. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not citing its resources isnt a good reason to delete an article It's easily fixable. Not to mention it has all its sources in there, just not gathered at the bottom of the page. --Ashuku 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then if it's fixed, I will probably change my "vote". --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What, are you accusing Blaze of using Photoshop? A picture is worth a thousand words. --Luigifan 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What? I never said anything about Photoshop. Stop throwing around accusations. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You doubted tha testimony of a picture. Photoshop is the first thing that came to mind that could produce such a flawed testimony. However, that is not the case in this instance. --Luigifan 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, what? I did not doubt that picture, and I never said that. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You said that the picture was not as good as a citation. I said that a picture was worth a thousand words. Clearly, you do not understand the wisdom of the ancients. --Luigifan 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not a proper citation here. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have referenced everything I could find. I hope it pleases you. BlazeHedgehog 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... The # of downloads really isn't going to show the notability, and the line about "and more" is WP:AWW. I think the Gamesmaster citation needs to have the page #, and I really don't think that Youtube is something to be cited. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the exact page number as I don't have a physical copy of the magazine myself. I'll ask around and see if any of my friends have it, though. BlazeHedgehog 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete The articles defenders are passionate, but that doesn't make the article any more notable. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources means that the coverage is EXTENSIVE and MULTIPLE. Simply saying "I think I read about it once in a magazine a buddy of mine had" fails the MULTIPLE and EXTENSIVE. Extensive in this context means the game needs to be REVIEWED, not just MENTIONED. If the people voting "keep" want to keep it, provide the link to a reliable source that has an actual REVIEW of the game, like lets say at LEAST a paragraph or two and some sort of rating. That would be a good start. Merely shouting, over and over again "it's notable because I say so!" isn't good enough. Please review Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. --Jayron32 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) vote changed, see below --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And shouting "It's not notable because I say so!" IS good enough? BlazeHedgehog 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • reply. Actually, I didn't do that. I said it is not notable becayse it is not covered in Reliable Sources. Find some reliable sources. Post the URLs here. Let us all read them. If there are actual reviews (considerably longer than one sentance) in reliable sources I will change my vote. That is your opportunity to keep this article. All we need is proof. Provide the proof, and the article gets kept. But before you give us links to blogs, forums, Youtube, or other unreliable sources, read the Wikipedia Guidelines on Reliable Sources, and give us several of those. --Jayron32 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hm, have to say this is at least somewhat notable, stridency of its defenders notwithstanding. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems to have a following. That said, I don't think it quite meets WP:SOFTWARE. Nephron  T|C 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial evidence of notability (though I'd be willing to change my vote if presented with decent evidence), plus embarrassingly poor behavior on the part of Luigifan. I find it exceedingly difficult to find any merit to what is being said when it is being bookended by obscenities and insults. EVula 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Almost no fan-games are notable enough to have an article. If they are notable, then they need, as has already been mentioned, extensive and multiple references in legitimately notable sources. A blurb with a picture is not sufficient; if a big magazine has reviewed the game, that's probably good enough, but that doesn't seem to have been presented yet. The defenders are passionate and if they want to defend the article better they'd be do better if they didn't continually fall back on ad hominem attacks, which only hurts them. Find us a review in a mainstream source and you'll probably get many of us to support keeping it. --The Way 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the fact that it has been mentioned a great deal it seems on Attack of the Show and elsewhere, the reliability of the sources could use a bit of work though -Derktar 05:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete No non-trivial references. Scattered mentions in blogs and offhand mention in one magazine maybe that somebody kinda remembers do not notability make.--Colindownes 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this one is a bit marginal, but the TV show featuring it makes it notable enough, in my opinion. Avoid bias against things like fan-made games; judge them objectively. Everyking 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The malice, hatefulness and blatant abuse of WP:CIVIL evidenced in this "discussion" make it impossible for me to form an objective opinion. --Masamage 08:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As Andre said, Attack of the Show discusses niche games as well as mainstream ones. However their coverage alone does not instantly make anything they discuss noteworthy. Most likely this fangame will never gain sufficient noteriety to have an article here, because, when it comes down to it, fangames are absolutely illegal unless the copyright holder says otherwise, and this one even uses ripped sprites in addition to copyrighted names and likenesses. If it ever earns a GameSpot entry like Halo Zero then, yes, I could say it's pushing the notability margin as an established authority has recognised it. AOTS is not such an authority. Garrett^Talk 09:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Once again Garrett said what I was thinking, just in a better way than I could. The Kinslayer 10:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I was... uncivilized... a while ago. Maybe even a barbarian. But, now, I have assumed the guise of the Ninja of Peace... Calm and introspective... Keeping a level head is a key element of Ninjitsu. A ninja who flies into a beserk rage is a ninja who won't last long. Analyzing the situation and waiting for the precise oppurtunity to deliver a deciding blow; that is how a ninja wins his battles. You are no match for my serene rebuttals through wisdom. --Luigifan 11:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ...great. That's just... yeah, cool. Whatever it takes for you to calm down. EVula 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I mentioned this game at an earlier AfD as an example of a notable fangame. I think fangames can be notable, and that this game is a great example. Maxamegalon2000 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that fan-games can be notable, but this one isn't. We need solid, reliable, and notable sources that prove the game is notable, and it just hasn't been provided. EVula 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article, block Luigifan and Ashuku Their personal threats, vandalism, profanity, and disruption of the process have been embarrasing to watch. The game, however, seems quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Auto movil 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Like I said, I lost my temper when I felt that Andrevan was ignoring us. However, now I see that it's because you don't think the citations are good enough. I would agree... if this was a commercial project. However, a mention is the best coverage a fangame can expect, evn if it's pretty good. If it actually gets an article in a magazine, it must be stellar... on the other hand, this game should fit those guidelines. Actually, Wikipedia is probably the site that does the best job of explaining this game, short of Blaze's website itself, and that's one of the major reasons I'd like to keep the article. --Luigifan 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  That's not what Wikipedia is for. I'm sorry, but if a mention is the best coverage something can get, then it has not made a significant impact on the world. Doesn't matter what it is. WP articles are required to base their reports on information that has already been published by a reputable source; no such thing exists for this, so we can't keep it.

  I think you should start some kind of Fangamepedia, and make your own standards for inclusion, and achieve your comprehensive list that way. The Wikimedia software is extremely easy to download and set up. Could be a lot of fun, and if done well, could probably be an external link from the Fangame WP article. --Masamage 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment I will agree that any "X" can be notable. The only wikipedia guideline that matters is "Non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources". Can anyone voting keep provide these MULTIPLE, RELIABLE, and NONTRIVIAL citations? If you can, I will change my vote. If all you can do is assert notability without providing evidence, then why should that give the admins a reason to keep the article. Remember, this isn't a vote, this is part of an investigation. Investigations require evidence. --Jayron32 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment I'm invoking the common-sense rule. There's no dispute that the game exists, was featured on a television show, and has a large number of players. The guidelines were intended to ensure this type of notability -- to provide a test for it. They weren't intended to disqualify otherwise-notable topics that fall under a certain unspecified threshold of media attention. That said, my personal interest in the game and the article, and in fan games in general (and Mario stuff in particular) is pretty much zero. Auto movil 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this is a classic case of Wikipedia through the looking glass syndrome the writers feel got at "where are all these comments coming from" - take a look at: 2006_October_27 - seeing things from the other side of the looking class might help! --Mike 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To the best of my knowledge, WP:SOFTWARE is a relevant guideline on both sides of the looking glass. EVula 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I find articles notable in themselves, to the extent that they contain information that's interesting to someone. Rōnin 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to sound rude, but with all due respect it doesn't really matter whether the subject is interesting to you or any other particular individual. Virtually everything is interesting to somebody, that doesn't mean it needs to be on Wikipedia. I find a number of things interesting that aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. The guidelines which have been formulated for us to follow were designed for this precise reason. --The Way 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. For instance, I'm extremely interested in my husband, in my friends' blogs, in the way some people's ears have bumps on the tips, and in the awesome birthmark on the back of my right knee. Not one of those things would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Masamage 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources are provided. --Kunzite 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Why should it matter that this is a fan-made game? It's a game that's appeared on television, SEVERAL gaming websites as well as printed magazines in a few countries, and has been downloaded a great amount of times. It has a fairly detailed Wikipedia entry, complete with references and screenshots. All of which is more then I can say about a good amount of officially released games, I can tell you. Oh, and it's also been mentioned in NGC Magazine. A scan here: http://coldflame.doorsclosing.com/images/twilightNGCarticle.jpg (I have a full page scan for anyone who asks for it) I hope this may help even slightly in proving the article's notability even further. H Hog 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The scanned image would count as a trivial source (at least to me). A sidebar is not the same as an actual article, which would be much more impressive. EVula 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines don't specify a distinction between sidebars and other reviews. Their purpose is to ensure that a game actually exists, and that it has wide enough recognition to have appeared in objective media sources. A nine-page spread in some game-industry journal would also be more impressive, honestly, but we've reached that crucial moment in which an article has satisfied the spirit of the guidelines, and has passed the common-sense test (i.e., it's not fancruft, a commercial pitch, or a vanity page), and votes for deletion are going to have to rest on opinion and personal taste. My own opinion is that game stuff is completely uninteresting, but the article isn't for me, if you see what I mean. Auto movil 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • As WP:SOFTWARE would suggest, it's long enough to not be counted as trivial; as the page suggests, a "trivial" mention would consist of little more then the name of the game and its release date. H Hog 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does not strike as notable enough to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is definitely more than notable enough. You shouldn't even bother nominating this for deletion. --huntersquid <°)))>< ^{Calamari Cove} 16:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep notable enough. Sasha l 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• change vote to keep: In light of new evidence (the scaned image from H Hog), coverage is definately NONTRIVIAL. Though short, it is an honest-to-god review, that establishes notability. We also have other short (though also nontrivial) reviews listed in a few places above. Let this be an object lesson to everyone on how to do research and provide evidence to a defence. Cold hard facts will beat passion any day. --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am one to agree that most indy projects do not deserver articles however this one has reached acclaim for what it is, G4, Kotaku, etc. Its obviously meeting the standard of notability. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only coverage presented is trivial. Two sentences and a web address hardly meets WP:RS. Wickethewok 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you think this should be deleted, then by that same logic, many, many, wiki articles need to go. Such as the All your base articles, any and all fangame articles and basically 1/3rd of wikipedia. Don't be silly, the fact that wikipedia has articles on such things that have a small or 'cult' following is what makes it a cut above other encyclopedias. To delete this would be to denounce the foundation of wikipedia. This is a definite keeper. Perfect Chaos Zero 01:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Hey Andrevan, are you listening to this?!? --Luigifan 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "All your base" has been cited in 44 "scholarly" articles per google scholar. I'm sure I could find enough to make the page stick. It's notable and sourcable--they're not comparable. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that fall short of notability guidelines. If you find similar that you feel do not meet the guidelines, put them up for deletion. But that's not the point. We're not discussing 1/3 of Wikipedia, we're talking about this article. We have objective criteria to determine this article's merits and we should used those to determine rather than the "if we delete this, we have to delete 1/3 of wikipedia" strawman. --Kunzite 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What Perfect Chaos Zero is saying, is that this page does fit in Wikipedia, albeit in a sort of "stubbish" fashion, in that it's encyclopedic enough to be included in an online encyclopedia, but would be a waste of paper (and a bit of extra mass) in a paper encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be dynamic, and to cover things that other encyclopedias would ignore, this page shouldn't be deleted. --Luigifan 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I know. Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is also not the repository of all human knowledge. Wikipedia also has content guidelines. They should be applied. --Kunzite 02:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article needs to be trimmed down tremendously, including cleaning up a lot of peacock terms. A four line entry is not being "featured" in a magazine. Linking an article to a user's page is NOT appropriate. Having 3/4 of your article consisting of a trivia section does not give any real information. I'm going to through and whittle this article down to what is verifiable and non-trivial. --Wafulz 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm removing a lot of the media mentions. The digg article just points to a primary source. The Insert Credit article says "by brandon, via Ryan Bloom". I've taken out the "game of the week thing" because 1. Game of the week = 52 per year => not too hard to do and 2. There were 70 votes, which makes it susceptible to ballot-stuffing. --Wafulz 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say keep the game of the week thing considering how many titles are released a year, and this was an indy project, its more then a testament to success on behalf of the developers. --NuclearZer0 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, I've put it back in. However, I've taken out the "landslide" bit because apparently the votes aren't archived and there's no other source for it, meaning leaving it in would leave us as a primary source for that information. --Wafulz 15:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It has gained the attention of those in the business of games, having appeared on Attack of the Show, so if they feel it's notable enough to get on their show, I feel it's notable enough to have it's own page. JQF 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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.