Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash Bandicoot Energon

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Bandicoot Energon

Contested ProD. Non-notable fan game. Fails WP:SOFT. Fancruft. Made up in school one day. 3 ghits [1]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete-Fan-made games aren't worthy of an article.--SUIT⁴² 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep-Fan Made games are just as much games as officially published ones. Besides, it is made fully clear that the game exists, and was not made up in school one day. Is a download link not considered proof that a game exists in the world and is fully playable? Jumpbutton 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's only edits are to the article Crash Bandicoot Energon, this AfD, and to his own userspace. JIP | Talk 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Judging by the ghits, not even a popular fan-made game. Maxamegalon2000 04:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not an official game, though.--SUIT⁴² 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are situations where fan-made games can be notable, such as Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX. Considering the number of fan-made games in existence, however, the notable ones certainly are the exception. Maybe Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels could use some cleaning. --Maxamegalon2000 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why exactly does that matter at all? Official or not, it's still a playable, existing game. Jumpbutton 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria_for_products_and_services before continuing a discussion here. --Maxamegalon2000 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• See, that is exactly my problem. That is the opinion of some people, but not all people. What is "notable" to others is not to another set of people. How this is possibly fair to all articles is beyond me, but seeing as this is going to be deleted anyways, I won't bother fighting for it. Jumpbutton 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We can still apply WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a directory listing of games (let alone fangames), and once you take out the unreliable sources and information (a forum page is the only reference), that's exactly what's left. ColourBurst 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have played this game, i enjoyed it and it stays faithful to a great series, and has a high replay value.User:mechabandicoot\mechabandicoot 4:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Both of which are irrelevant to this discussion, I'm sorry to say. EVula 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable fan-made game. EVula 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I also agree that some of the games in Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels need to be deleted, very few fan-made games are notable. TJ Spyke 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability standards; status as a fan-game virtually dooms it from the start. --The Way 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fan games are generally not notable. JIP | Talk 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not just not notable, also not verifiable. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Everyone else has given the reasons, this fails practically any policy you care to name. The Kinslayer 20:17, 25 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.