Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2

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 by Fabrictramp. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Trek 2

Flash Trek 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable Flash game. Prod contested on the grounds that this is the "only game with entire in-game universe, many NPCs, via Flash" - first, I doubt this game is entirely unique in that respect; second, none of this is a substitute for third-party coverage, which doesn't appear to exist. This article doesn't even name the author. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable flash game, no independent sources about the game, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete NN. --RucasHost (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. hold on a second, friends and colleagues. Who says this game isn't unique? It consists of several unique components. one is a complex game interface with multiple game functions. another is multiple in-game universe features, including star systems and NPCs. Also, players have a variety of races and ships to play as. basically, it is like an entire PC game, in a browser-based Flash game. And furthermore, it is a significant entry in a long line of Star trek simulator games, a sub-genre which stretches back to the earliest days of mainframe-based computing. hope you will consider this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mind showing reliable sources to back up those claims or to show how this Flash game is otherwise notable? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Uniqueness or merits of subject are not very important when it comes to deletion discussions. If it's a good game, who says so? If nobody worth mentioning has said so, then it must be deleted. --Kjoonlee 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a scan of the search results from google provided not one reliable soure. The vast majority of flash games will never pass notability unless there is a substantial increase in the amount of reliable sites reviewing them. Someoneanother 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, good point. anyone want to start a new website with me? :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind there are sites out there, such as Jay Is Games, which deal with flash/browser/casual/odd games, and several others like Game Tunnel which may be interested in writing reviews. The question is, is the game capable of catching their attention? If so, there's nothing stopping anyone sweetly asking these sites if they'd review it. Jay's has a game submission form for this purpose and seems to have taken on more reviewers recently. Someoneanother 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your great suggestion. that's very helpful. I will try that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that onlineflashgames, addictinggamesdb, and flashportal are major games sites. I do't understand how you would excpect a reliable source for a flash game. I have noticed that many Miniclip games that are not so popular have detailed explanations, I don't quite understand why this aritcle shouldn't either. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would expect a reliable source for anything if it's the subject of an article on WP, we're a tertiary source and need secondary sources to produce articles, hence why when you're creating articles you get Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. Online Flash Games does not provide any information, it just offers the game for play, I couldn't find the game on Addicting Games DB but clicking on other games just brings up a couple of sentences about them. That doesn't cut it. As far as Miniclip games are concerned, they're subject to the same guidelines and if they don't measure up they could be here on AFD at any point. Someoneanother 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clerefication. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Although this flash game might not have much reliable sources, this is an encyclopedia, so flash game content can be included for readers who would like to learn more about the game. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you state that in terms of Wikipedia policy? "It's useful" and "It's interesting" are not reasons that we keep articles. The existence of reliable sources which establish the notability of the subject is. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Zetawoof. Fair enough. However, how about WP:CONSENSUS amid good-faith editors, if they all feel that a specific game is WP:NOTABLE? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (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.