Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten cannon

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. Sango 123 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten cannon[edit]

Fails Wikipedia: Notability (software) Was listed as PROD, but article author removed tag to dispute. Flash Game. -- Targetter 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This software is not notable at all Popcorn2008 02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
Delete per nom and this is essentially a game guide. DrunkenSmurf
Delete per WP:NOT and fails software. I love kittens too. SynergeticMaggot 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, per above (especially SynergeticMaggot, <3 kittens). RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly non-notable. Though you could argue that this is systemic bias due to the kitten-loving nature of most wikipedians... Ruaraidh-dobson 11:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You betcha! Never heard of this game, and I've been around Newgrounds and Flashplayer once or twice. -- gakon5 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of a million games of a similar nature on the net. Viridae ^Talk 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Wikipedia has millions of articles covering a vast amount of random topics. Taking this article down would be a disservice to all the people who would find this article interesting. Who decides what is the threshold of an article good enough to keep? Cirrsplat ^Talk 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFTWARE. That's what decides. Ruaraidh-dobson 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:SOFTWARE is only proposed, not policy, don't forget. MrD 01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes articles like Slime Volleyball or other games worthy of staying on wikipedia? I really don't want to see this article being taken off. What makes wikipedia great is that you can find articles on almost anything, including Kitten Cannon, but I'm pretty sure it will be deleted.Cirrsplat 12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slime Volleyball has had media attention, albeit only from online sources. [[1]] --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The world decides whether a piece of software deserves an article by employing that software, writing about that software, and the software determines it by being first of a kind, significantly innovative, etc. This doesn't pass any of those standards, and Wikipedia is neither Freshmeat.org nor C/Net's download.com. Geogre 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, fails WP:WEB. --PresN 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every Internet flash game deserves its own page. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a flash game. Fails WP:WEB guideline. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I've played this game before, this is definitly not notable enough to be placed onto wikipedia. Fails WP:WEB as well. --Nomader^Talk 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, this article doesn't fail any policies, only a proposed one. This article is a good source of information for players of the game. --Chamale 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, being able to post a high score if you got it is sort of vanity. --Gray Porpoise 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Peephole 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete nn free flash game, so far hasn't received any media attention.--Andeh 15:09, 5 August 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.