Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seiklus

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 - Yomangani^talk 22:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seiklus

non-notable amatuer computer game made with a computer game construction kit Luvcraft 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• That is complete bullshit! KEEP! --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 09:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's located all over the web. By your standards, unless it's made by a large company, it's not notable. Keep.--Kafeithekeaton 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• THIS GAME PWNS U AND ALL OF UR FAMILY MEMBERS Tjg92 05:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seiklus has appeared on numerous independent game sites and recieved coverage in two printed magazines; that it was created with a Game Creation System should have no bearing on either quality or notability (especially in light of greater developer focus on user-created content). Games such as Doukutsu Monogatari, Recca and TUMIKI Fighters have articles on English Wikipedia—these articles seem free of such dispute as this article suffers...Yet those games have recieved less English-sepaking press than seiklus. Reconcile previous reasoning used there and you will have a proper answer. Thanks. --E. Megas 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• To add some samples of high-profile mentions: The Gamer's Quarter Issue 2 (available in PDF and print versions); seiklus blurb on Edge Online (originally in print issue); Reference to seiklus by a columnist for videogame business news site Next Generation. --E. Megas 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Seiklus is not only a significant game, it's one of the most widely-acclaimed and recognized "indie" games in years. I know I've personally referenced it (directly or indirectly) in a number of articles for a variety of publicaions, including Next-Gen.biz and GamaSutra, as one of the most elegant recent game designs for any platform. It's a common basis for discussion and comparison on at least two major Internet communites I'm aware of, dealing at least in part with design analysis and indie game development. For its part, it's an incredibly influential little game. --Aderack 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please edit the article to add this information. It's important to establish notability in the article, not just here. 68.105.109.51 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's one, in passing. I've not kept a strict record in anticipation for Wikipedia drama. I'll link what I can find offhand, in a moment.--Aderack 07:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few that thirty seconds of Googling bring up. Everyone else, feel free to add links as you come across them.--Aderack 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless WP:WEB is met with cites in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See, this isn't a helpful way to conduct business. The constructive way to phrase the above is to say "comment: unless you add some references to show why this game is so noteworthy, it's probably fodder for deletion -- so you might want to get busy with that". No need to be draconian.--Aderack 08:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep From WP:N: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources." The article itself does lack these references, however, they do exist as demonstrated by prior comments. There is no reason to delete the article, as all it needs is to be updated. Inmatarian 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, from WP:WEB, "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria", #3, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." This criteria is met with the External Links to it's own pages on MobyGames and Home of the Underdogs. Inmatarian 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Jeez... There are less notable platformers than this on Wikipedia. I'd say pick on them, but they also deserve to be on here. Most of them, at least. -Sergio

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.