Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice

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. Title will be salted, as well. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformice

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

Non-notable browser-based game. No independent references, nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Weak Keep: These are one of those things where the subject looks like it's "rising" in fame. I would delete, but in this case, it's just going to be a matter of time before this request becomes inrelevent. The-magicJack (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — The-magicJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to comment on this, please note that what may happen is not a criterion for inclusion. We can always restore the article later. (I am not commenting on the merits of this particular article, only on the above !vote.) --Chris (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The-magicJack has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. andy (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:N Likeminas (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google only turns up blogs and no reliable sources. Let's wait until it has indeed 'risen' in fame. Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS by a mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remake this article if it gets deleted. you better expect that you jerks :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does it, expect people to be coming in here to save this article when I make a topic about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. They'll get the SPA tag, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete waste of everyone's time, you'd be better off looking for reliable sources, people coming here and screaming "keep as I really enjoy this game" will make absolutely no difference to this AFD, only reliable sources will do that. As for recreating the article, we can lock the article against that and blacklist the website (so it's automatically removed by our wiki software). You can't play hardball when you have nothing to play with. So to 'win', you need to find reliable sources and add them to the article, it is the only way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was originally CSD'd as A7. As there was an established history/evolutionary path put forward that spanned a number of years, I considered that to be enough notability to survive CSD, but I had changed it to a PROD. I'm not overly surprised to find it here at AfD. However, I warn the article proponent that "I promise to make it again if deleted" is usually the surest invitation to WP:SALT the article to ever prevent re-creation, and if this article is indeed deleted, I recommend create-protection based on the above "threat". I also remind them that WP:CSD permits the immediate deletion of any article that is essentially similar to one recently deleted in a community AfD discussion. Notability guidelines are important to this project. You have a chance to fix it: about 6 days, in fact. Stop whining and threatening, and try to actually fix it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also WP:SALT — raeky T 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only blog reviews. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of any significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and Strongly consider salting given this "offer" Codf1977 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Codf1977 and Strongly Endorse salting due to ongoing ANI and above comment. Deltwalrus (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and WP:NEXTBIGTHING, add a little WP:SALT for flavour. ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep can this article be saved looking at ALEXA ranks? also the youtube video Meet the mouse that boosted the game popularity has got more than 300.000 views.
I agree there aren't much 3rd party sources but I like the game :-).--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got also a general question a game published and sold on a physical support is more notable and deserves an article more than an oline game with more players?--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa rank, youtube views and distrubution method are only relevent if they've been commented on by reliable sources - so it's all back to WP:N, really. Marasmusine (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (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.