Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Ninja Game (2nd nomination)

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Ninja Game

Stupid Ninja Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unnotable game, with only 72 google hits, all unsuitable for qualifying WP:N. Unsourced. Previous AfD from 2004 makes interesting reading, with one reference from a forum satisfying everyone! Marasmusine (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's always interesting to see the way things were kept/promoted to FA status back in the years before 2005, and how the standards have improved since then. Now I think there's pretty much no doubt that it's non-notable. For the record, I get 584 results on US Google, and only 62 on UK Google, with "wiki" excluded from the results of both, but even in the 584 results on the US search linked above, I can't find any reliable sources establishing notability. Myspace, Youtube, blogs, forum links, but nothing really solid. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• The previous AfD is pretty funny. At any rate, clearly not a notable game. There's about a kajillion drinking party games that someone made up in school one day; they need to be notable to be included here. Perhaps we could redirect to Party game, as it might be searched for. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Walrus. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Walrus. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Walrus Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I really wish wikipedia was true to it's roots and the 2004 AfD was the way things still were. If it's verifiable and vaguely notable, it's in.... Hobit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, this isn't verifiable, or notable. If it was, we would all be !voting keep. Forums, Myspace profiles and the like are not verifiable, as even I could create either, and I could say that the Stupid Ninja Game involves wearing a chicken on your head while attempting to run up a wall. Whoever runs up the wall farthest wins. Hence why forums aren't considered reliable sources in most cases. Likewise with Myspace, Urban Dictionary, wikis (including Wikipedia itself, apart from on rare occasions) and the like. Likewise, if there were any reliable sources indicating notability, then we would agree it were notable. As it is, I get more Google hits than this game, even if we remove "wiki" from the results. Indeed, there's three people talking about me on this page alone ;). I would not, for even one moment, suggest that I am notable. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So maybe you are notable. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 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.