Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroid Prime 2D

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Prime 2D

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above, not even complete yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 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)

• delete a google search turns up self made sites, blogs, forums, and the Wikipedia article itself, but no reliable sources The article even asserts its own lack of notability, since it is not complete (crystal balling) and fan-created game (fails software notability). --Jayron32 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EVula 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Jayron32. An unfinshed, non-notable unverifiable fan game. The Kinslayer 09:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but when the game comes out and if it gains popularity, I suggest the article be recreated.SuperDT 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've been following this game's progress for a while, and could never justify its having an article. Maxamegalon2000 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nom and Jayron32 spell out the arguement for deletion very well. --Kunzite 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even as a fan of their work, I have to say the case is not essentially different from unreleased game mods. Welcome back when the game is actually finished and has gotten the due attention from the community at large... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Weak delete in light of magazine mention. Not keep, because I think the magazine mention in question is borderline trivial - not entirely trivial (as in "name and an URL"), but you can just say that "hey, it registers on the radar" but you can't really say "whoa, an article". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - If only because Andrevan is going around flagging all these for deletion when certain ones should definitely be kept. Andrevan is no doubt aware that nobody is going to defend these poor games; most folks come in and say, "Oh it fails WP: Software so I'll vote delete on principal" without even thinking of anything else. It's very one-sided and kind of sneaky, if you ask me. Besides, Metroid Prime 2D has been mentioned in a magazine, and while somebody will no doubt go "It's a sentence and a screenshot", it's better than nothing at all. [1] There may even be more mentions in magazines, but I don't exactly keep up with what magazines mention Metroid Prime 2D; but this just goes with what I was saying earlier: The people who COULD defend Metroid Prime 2D are not here to do so, so I will do my best in their wake. BlazeHedgehog 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Voting "keep" because you disagree with the nominating editor is a really, really bad policy. And, yes, a screenshot and a sentence (or two, in this case) is hardly a non-trivial mention. EVula 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the genius of voting like this is you can vote for whatever reason you wish, and I think Andrevan is being unfair. These are Wikipedia guidelines, not set-in-stone follow-them-or-die rules. In the tidal wave of useless information on Wikipedia, fangames are the minority. While I would definitely support these AFDs if everybody and their grandmother had a fangame on Wikipedia, they don't, usually because the TRULY useless ones end up speedy deleted. However, games like Metroid Prime 2D, Mario Forever, and SRB2 are articles that people generally seem to like and keep more or less up to date, suggesting that the project is known well-enough that people want to contribute to it's article. Andrevan is exploiting vague Wikipedia guidelines, like some cheesy lawyer who looks for every loophole to win a court case. I'm sure he thinks he has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I hold nothing personal towards him, but imagine if I went around putting articles up for AFD that I simply didn't care for. Imagine if EVERYBODY did the same. Half of Wikipedia would be up for AFD constantly! BlazeHedgehog 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The problem is this isn't a vote. It's a debate. You can vote for whatever you like, but the closing admin can ignore it. Especially if you're only voting only to make a point. --Kunzite 07:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Isn't... everybody making a point? I mean, I'd hate to think everybody in this AFD is doing something pointless. If they DON'T have a point, what's the use of doing an AFD at all? BlazeHedgehog 10:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • No. Stating your position here one way or the other because one disagrees with the actions of an editor outside the context of this AFD is trying to "make a point". One should focus on the merits of the article rather than the actions of an editor. --Kunzite 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In this case, I think it's entirely fair to voice concerns. However, I don't believe voting keep is utterly uncalled for in this case, if the nominator can bring some reasons to keep this article not deleted, and a magazine mention is a good reason. I'd advise everyone involved to calm down a bit though; accusations of bad faith nominations aren't particularly fun to throw around lightly, especially when these days a lot of fan stuff gets nominated for deletion. Consider AfDs a trial by fire that every topic that isn't on rock-solid foundation has to go through if someone so notices. Consider it an opportunity - a dire and dramatic opportunity, but an opportunity nevertheless - to improve the notability/sourcing details of the article in question. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Mention it in the Metroid Prime article itself (and be sure to cite the magazine as well). --Tristam 23:10, 29 October 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.