Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emogame

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 all. References have not been forthcoming; if someone believes this is notable enough and wishes to write a referenced article about this game, they are welcome to do so, but my feeling is the articles in their current totally unsourced state is not something they will be able to expand upon. Better rewrite from scratch, citing sources. Kimchi.sg 11:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emogame[edit]

Non-notable web game with a slew of crufty related articles. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - quality seems inline with most other video game articles, notability seems iffy but it does fetch a few ghits. I'm no tconvinced that this article should go. -- 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfunkymonkey (talk • contribs) .
Weak keep'. Emogame 2.5 (the Anti-Bush game) received a bit of media coverage, if I recall correctly. These are all fairly notable flash games. Possibly merge them together, though such an article might be excessively long. --- RockMFR 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tristam 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, plenty of coverage a few years ag. Links forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft, not notable. --Improv 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at least Emogame, has multiple media coverage. I'm almost inclined to delete all, though, if only to allow someone to write one short encyclopedic article on all this. Sandstein 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft = many editors and nobody paying attention to Wikipedia policies. Maybe they're worthy of an article (I haven't seen the evidence yet), but then you might as well start from scratch. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOT a game guide, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 18 November 2006 (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.