Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Flash Flash Revolution: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:50, 9 December 2006 editShii (talk | contribs)21,017 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:14, 28 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Keep (No consensus)'''. --''']''' 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*The closure was overturned at ], and the result changed to '''delete''' based on the consensus established there. ~ ] 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
As ] said when he prodded it, there are no ]. Nothing comes up in the . No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --] (] - ]) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC) As ] said when he prodded it, there are no ]. Nothing comes up in the . No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --] (] - ]) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' The article does not meet the notability requirements for either ], ], or ], whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (]) by reliable source(s). --]]] 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
{{afdanons}}
*'''Delete''' The article does not meet the notability requirements for either ], ], or ], whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (]) by reliable source(s). --]]] 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Merge''' to new article ] with other articles such as ], ], ], ]. Failing that, '''redirect''' to ], which has a section on Simulators and clones, since the history doesn't need to be deleted from view. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2006-12-09 18:58Z</small></i></span>
⚫ *'''Delete''' I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
* Normally I'm all in favor of deleting things as non-notable, but at this one I hesitate. It's been active for at least four years now (I think; seems like I've been playing it at least that long) and has a million logins (not users, but whatever). 1400 people are currently playing. (I am just throwing out stats that I see on the site right now.) It does not meet the cited notability threshholds, but perhaps we should consider ]? ] 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
** I highly doubt those stats, and that's the problem with using primary sources. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
*** Why do you highly doubt that the statistics reported by the website are accurate (e.g. number of registered accounts, number of games played, number of users online)? They're database queries, after all. Do you suspect that the administrators of FFR are (and, by inclusion, I am) being dishonest about FFR's statistics? - ] 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*** I read through the first nine pages of google hits (after searching on "Flash Flash Revolution") and got a zillion links to the game, mirrors, and blogs, and virtually nothing written -about- the game. Frustrating. But without secondary sources, you're right, it lacks ]. Changing my vote to '''delete or merge'''. ] 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''<s>Keep</s> Strong keep.''' Frustrating, yes, but as an administrator of the site, I must object. It'd be nice if we had a PR team behind the website getting us noticed in major tech blogs and news publications, but we don't. If someone doubts the number of users of our website, they can go to the forums and see the vast scope of the website for themselves. We have 76,000+ active users - a number greater than ]'s total number of logins. According to Alexa , we get more pageviews than either DDR Freak or ]'s official website - yet those two articles are certainly notable. I can also share some behind-the-scenes server statistics: this past Friday alone, FFR was played 309,757 times. FFR is kind of a web anomaly - it's not very often that such a massive community is built around a flash game. Though primary sources may not be the best sources, I'd rather use the website as a source than delete or merge the article altogether. I'd say that ] seems to be crying out to apply to articles about subjects that are exceptions to the rule, so I'd say it applies in this instance. - ] 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
** As an admin, you shouldn't be voting, but rather commenting so other people can vote. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
***Admins can !vote the same as anyone else, though !voting prevents them from closing the AfD. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <span style="color:darkblue;">to</span> ]]o]</small></sup> 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
****Not a Misplaced Pages administrator, an FFR administrator. ] 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*****Aha. My bad. Yes, people are generally advised to not edit article about themselves or companies where they work in order to avoid any conflict of interest. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <span style="color:darkblue;">to</span> ]]o]</small></sup> 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
******] says that it's good etiquette to disclose if one has a vested interest in the article, which I have done. There are etiquette guidelines about creating articles about a company one works for, but not about editing them or participating in their development, and certainly not about voting for them in AfD. Also, I'm a ] - I'm certainly not a single-purpose shill. -] 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Redirect''' per Quarl. --] 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)</small>
* '''STRONG KEEP''' - This article has been around quite some time, as the website has been aswell. The site boasts over one million members, has over 300,000 active games daily, has been featured on several TV shows (Notably The Screen Savers), has been featured on several high profile blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku), and boasts music from several high profile artists, especially in the Bemani scene. --<b>]]</b><sup> (])</sup> 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
** Cite sources. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
** Please note that lightdarkness is an admin/developer for FFR. ] 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' SPUI, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. SPUI has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past, and perhaps has a persnoal vendette against the site? I don't know, but this is a notable website, and deserves an entry on Misplaced Pages. --<b>]]</b><sup> (])</sup> 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
**I would like to throw in a good word for SPUI. I put this on prod deletion as it obviously has no sources. Someone else removed the prod without explanation just before the 5 days were up, so SPUI put it here. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or merge and redirect per Quarl if you must. No reliable sources. ]] 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', no reliable sources. I made the article but I honestly don't care, it sucks anyway. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> ]</sup></span> 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
** This feels like a bad faith vote. Why would you make an article and then later vote for its deletion? If reliable sources are important to you, shouldn't you have started the article with reliable sources to begin with? - ] 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
***The article was made more than two years ago. ]] 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - pretty notable, on par with other simulators such as StepMania. Its site has an Alexa rating of 28,256, which isn't bad. --] 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
⚫ ** Alexa is not a source. Cite sources. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' By any common sense testthis is notable, and there seems to not be the slightest problem verifying: it exists and is a game site. The many links about the game, though none of them individually demonstrates it, seen as a group, they do. ] 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
** Cite ], not websites. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No ] sources means that it is not notable by the primary notability criteria. No evidence that it meets ], ], or ] (which I'd never noticed before this discussion). ] 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' per Quarl. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <span style="color:darkblue;">to</span> ]]o]</small></sup> 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
* Just pointing out that ] and ] are proposals, not guidelines. -] 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
**Thank you for pointing that out, though I imagine most people are already aware of that. Regardless of whether those apply, this article doesn't meet ] or ], which ''are'' guidelines. As it doesn't meet ] (due to only having 1st party sources), it therefore doesn't meet ] or ], which are policies. The best that can be done in this case is mention it on the other page, as indicated by others, above. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <span style="color:darkblue;">to</span> ]]o]</small></sup> 09:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' per Quarl or '''delete''' for lack of sources. --] 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 20:14, 28 January 2023

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 (No consensus). --§hanel 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Flash Flash Revolution

As Ashibaka said when he prodded it, there are no reliable sources. Nothing comes up in the Google news archive. No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --SPUI (T - C) 09:33, 9 December 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.