Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashinpon's Quest

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. Lara❤Love 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flashinpon's Quest

Flashinpon's Quest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A speedy tag (not mine) on this article was declined. Upon my adding the reflist tag so that references could be viewed, two turned out to be blacklisted, the third is a personal page where the game can be downloaded, and the fourth -- www.tor.com -- returns zero hits for any link to the title. Similarly, there are precisely three Ghits. I will take no position here, having already been accused of bullying the article's creator, but leave it to the community to decide. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete also look at User generated games which is related. JuJube (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but I dont think any discussion of RPG's is complete without mention of the underground RPGmaking by the gamers themselves (my own username is taken from the Flashinpon's Quest series) I admit I'm a bit of a newb when it comes to editing/creating wikipedia articles. I've read up on the deletion rules and everything they sent me, and still think this is a viable topic. Granted, most of my sources are e-sources, but we're talking about an e-phenomenon. Omitting this from Wikipedia would be tantamount to removing "Numa Numa" or other e-sensations that swept the globe, except this trend is still growing and has had millions of dollars poured into it. I have been accused of citing 'blacklisted sites' as sources, but reading up 'notability' did not provide any such site list. If there is such a list, I would appreciate being sent a copy so as not to make that mistake again.

It can be debated that the 'notable games' don't need their own pages, but to act like the entire subject is irrelevant to our time is sheer ludicrous. If gaming isnt your thing, maybe this will seem insignificant to you, but I guarantee you you've worked on some articles that I would find boring and pointless too. I dont know if this comes to a vote, or what, but that's the way I see it. Flashinpon (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Without comment on user generated games in general, this game specifically does not appear to be notable, based on an apparent lack of interest via Google. The page you download the game from only has a thousand hits, and three of those were me trying to figure out what I was looking at. Rnb (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional delete - I'm the one who declined the speedy, as the forthcoming book is IMO enough of an assertion of notability (Tor is a "real" mainstream publisher, not a guy-and-his-printer vanity outfit). However, there doesn't seem to be a reliable source for the book's existence and without that, there isn't enough to warrant keeping the article. If the book is genuinely forthcoming, I'd suggest either userifying the article or for the closing admin to explicitly grant permission to recreate the article once there is a legitimate source added. — iridescent 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree -- if the book is forthcoming, then notability will be definitely worth considering, and I'd agree with the recreation of the article for further consideration if a reliable source can be found. The fact that the Tor site returns zero hits for the game's title makes me dubious, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Only claim to notability is that it's supposedly to be made into a book, but no reliable sources confirm that, and even if it eventually becomes true the book would be more notable than the game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Added new ref, author's home page Flashinpon (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm the one who nominated for the speedy, but understand why that was declined. However, the alleged book offer is unsourced (and may be a hoax) and the article as a whole is lacking in sources or any other claims of notability. The primary editor's nick seems to indicate an obvious COI. The article is grossly inaccurate about RPGs, claiming 'Like all RPGs, the heroes are sent on one quest after the other, slaying monsters to gain experience until 'leveling up', which grants even more power and abilities.' (The claim may be true of this game - it is not true of all RPGs.) Edward321 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not demonstrate notability and a search is turning up no reliable sources to bolster the article. At this moment in time the Tor publication hasn't been demonstrated as a tangible reality - even if it were to happen it would not help construct a viable videogame article, the exact ramifications would have to be examined at the time. Someoneanother 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• response to edward321

1. I already read up on the COI rules, and they explicitly state that having experience with a topic doesn't create a COI automatically. 2. Your claim that 'it is not true of all rpgs' could use some backing. Name a single RPG that doesn't involving questing, monster-slaying, or leveling up.(even if you can come up with some examples, a simple edit from 'all' to 'most' should suffice) Flashinpon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Even 'most' is probably wrong, considering how may games don't include at least one of 'questing', 'monster slaying' or 'leveling up'. To pick a few examples that include none of the three - Boot Hill, Traveller, and Champions. There are also games that don't include 'heroes' or where the leveling up doesn't come from monster slaying. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Settle for "many"? I've never heard of any of the 3 games you mentioned, either they're really obscure or I'm just out of it... Flashinpon (talk) 01:46, 6 May 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.