Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Neverending

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Neverending

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, non-existent MMO. Any notability is derived from the fact that this game essentially became Flickr, with no independent notability. Sourced from fan pages and rumors, and even then there is no content. Certainly deserving of a footnote in the Flickr page (it is already mentioned there), but does not meet our criteria for inclusion on its own. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case could't a simple redirect to the Flicker article have been made instead.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my redirection was undone. There is no content to merge, there is no notability, there should be no article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It existed. Who cares? Asteroid1717 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prior to this discussion, the nominator tried redirecting the article without an effort to merge its content, a backdoor attempt at deletion. The article was already reasonably well referenced, and I just added several more references. It would not be difficult to identify more from the Google searches above. While much of the online content related to the game is no longer available after so many years, the volume that still can be found reflects its influence and notability. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a frontdoor attempt at redirecting without merging. I already explained what I did in this AfD above, so I don't appreciate the negative comments on my actions. There is little content of value, and none that isn't mentioned on the Flickr page. The refs are mostly fan sites, or a dripping some of Flickr's notability down onto the game. The Techcrunch article doesn't even seem to be true, and their "tip" was likely an April Fools joke. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep insisting that most of the sources are fansites. There's one fansite that's cited a few times–it's as close as one can get to a primary source for a game that's been offline since 2004–but the majority of the references are from people notable enough to have their own articles. You're not saying that they're not reliable sources, are you? I can also assure you that the TechCrunch report is accurate, as I was one of the many people who experienced it firsthand. I have no idea why you'd assume it was false. - Eureka Lott 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - belongs in the development section of the Flickr article. The sourcing is not strong enough to support a separate article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a single in-depth review of this game. All coverage is incidental in Flickr books/sources or from obscure blog-like web sites. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.