Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyff

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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flyff

Flyff (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But needs a major rewrite. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is definitely a notable game. --- RockMFR 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean it up. --humblefool® 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, nearly as notable as Maplestory. A clean up tag has now been placed in the top of the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Judging from the number of GHits, the game may be notable. Still, the article fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE because of lack of sources. --Nehwyn 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — Keep as it's a very popular game. I've actually heard of this one, and have friends who play it. Needs sources, however, as Nehwyn stated. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Does read like a game guide. Will be happy to reconsider if it's sourced and cleanup begins. Shimeru 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the award's been found. Shimeru 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Don't give up on it that easily. We put a lot of work into it, and admit it's too much like a guide. But tell us how to fix it instead of throwing all our work into the drain. Note the B-rank on the talk page, whoever put that doesn't think it's hopeless. Oubliette 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'll admit that I can't find any reputable reviews on it, but I do believe it is much more notable in Korea and the Philipinnes. I also spent a lot of time on the article in the past, rewritting a lot of content located above the Classes section, thus I'm a little biased. I was refraining from voting but looking at the votes now, there doesn't seem to be a strong support for deleting. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep According to a Financial Release (http://corp.163.com/news_eng/040803/040803_2269.html), Flyff was "Voted as an award-winning game by South Korea's Ministry of Culture in June 2004," meeting "Online Content" Notability guidelines per the second criteria. And as someone who has never played it, I personally found this a decent article to learn more about Flyff. However, it is written like an official guide. The "Versions" and "Updates" sections, as well as the first part of "Flying," are good examples of material that belongs here. A lot of the other material needs to be scrapped or changed dramatically--for Game Mechanics in particular, the focus should be on how unique mechanics affect players and their experience. Blue Crest 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per meeting the "major award" criterion, but needs a major cleanup (and the source mentioned here cited in the article). The article needs to summarize the game, not go into every detail. Seraphimblade 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but as stated several times, it needs clean up badly.--Niroht 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above commenters. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one needs cleaning up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 14 November 2006
• Keep I think the nomination is a bit bogus. I hope there isn't a hidden agenda. Hu 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:07, 15 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.