Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanaca Crash

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. Not convinced by keep arguments as they are not backed by references. --Ezeu 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanaca Crash

Fan made flash game that doesn't seem to be particularly notable. No sources found, so it looks like it fails WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Like the above nomination on Exmortis], looks like somebody put some work into the game but again seems promotional. Reluctant for a strong delete just because I have not heard of it. Chris Kreider 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike Chrislk, I have heard of it. And while it's an entertaining game, it really hasn't gotten much attention from independent, reliable sources, so fails notability guides, sadly. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not many reliable sources, so I support deleting. Hello32020 19:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do not Delete --because look at the US Mirror site: a chat next to the flash has been updating with people talking, so DO NOT DELETE please.
  • Yes, but this can cause dissapointment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs). — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly Do Not delete Because i support this game, and its a Good one. Multiple sites have been linking this game to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs). — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Yes, but how does this subject meet the notability guidelines? How many sites are linking to the game does not matter. This game isn't notable, and thus it doesn't deserve an article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It does. So whats the use on deleting it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs).

  Comment Read the guides for notability again. The game hasn't been covered in reliable sources, it hasn't won any major awards and it's not published by a well-known, independent distributor. Thus the game is not notable, and thus does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I seen other flash games in wikipedia with no notable things, and not deleted. so why should this be when the others are not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs). — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment If those games don't show any notability, then those too can be nominated for deletion. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont even bother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs).

• Its "official homepage" is a Geocities site btw... Wickethewok 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JZX100 (talk • contribs). — JZX100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Yptype 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, otherwise Weak delete; this has been discussed in print (Anime magazine in Finland, at least, ran a non-trivial article; can't remember which issue). Probably merge-worthy if the authors have done anything more worthwhile. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In terms of notability this game has hundreds of thousands of google hits. Googling for reviews shows around 20000 hits. Yes, these are not published sources, but an internet game IMO can have its notability established by grassroots means. WP:WEB is a guideline not policy. Every guideline has exceptions, and we can use our wiggle room in this case to keep a game that was a popular phenomenon according to google. The article can be improved enough to make it viable to keep it around. -- cmh^TC 14:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:V does not allow for exceptions though. Wickethewok 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

True, in my opinion. It was also made from an [eroge] game CROSS+CHANNEL (The + sign is a horrible excuse for the cross, but eh) made for the PS2. But why not merge it with the article for CROSS+CHANNEL?

• Delete per nom. Very fan crufty, too. Anomo 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it fan crufty? JZX100

• Note: This debate page was refactored to the standard Wikipedia Articles for Deletion format. Please add comments as indentions rather than copying and blockquoting the comment you are replying to. --Kunzite 19:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki, if anyone will have it. Google gives us 796 unique pages of content with of out 235,000 total mentions for "Nanaca Crash" -wikipedia. This tells me that there are a lot multiple posts on forums with the name and those inflate the google results. The article fails to present a case as to how it passes Wikipedia content guidelines for web inclusion or Wikipedia content guidelines for software inclusion. Finally, the article consists mostly of gameplay information Wikipedia is not a game guide. Given all of these factors, the article should be removed from Wikipedia. --Kunzite 19:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't even pretend to be notable. Seems to be vanispamtisement. The Kinslayer 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Because not only its a remarkable game, but its due to the fact people fail to see its notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.212.159.11 (talk • contribs).
• Keep - Anyone who's paying attention knows it's notable. palecur 01:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am paying attention. Has the game been featured multiple times in any media source? i.e. Gaming magazine? (This doesn't include the paragraph blurb and link.) Has it won any major awards? i.e. a Webby or some equivalent major video game design award? If the article is notable, either of these two simple questions should be addressed in the article. --Kunzite 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There's more to notability than media attention, or (snort) Webby awards, which are below even the Grammys in terms of actually meaning anything.palecur 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course there's more... Those were examples. Attention in multiple scholarly papers like Second Life has gotten would be a great example of something outside of a "media mention". Webby awards are just an example of a famous award. It could have won a Spike TV Video Game Award. Where has this supposedly notable game gotten any attention from? The stated purpose of the encyclopedia is to gather secondary sources. What secondary sources has this game been described in? You can go to WP:RS get some examples of what sources are considered to be acceptable. --Kunzite 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this small internet phenomenon is worth documenting. It's a good, increasingly well known game, and the information documented here about specials is hard to find. I have seen more pointless stub articles which are well cemented within Wikipedia, I feel deleting this article would be counterproductive to the aims of Wikipedia. --Super Jamie 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We must educate the masses - it's incredible how many people who play Nanaca Crash don't know what it's about, so this is a handy article in that respect. --Storm Boy 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep - This game has been reviewed by numerous gaming sites, and is becoming an Internet phenomenon. See link jayisgames as well as link channel4
• Keep - This is a game known among the anime community to some extent. It does have notability. 68.41.170.184 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Above line was mine. Ergzay 04:46, 6 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.