Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm Hustle

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, yet another non-notable Internet game. GlassCobra 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Hustle[edit]

I don't know why this article exists almost a year. It only describes a childish Flash game that similar with bejeweled, only to have different icons. It does not assert any notability materials to have its own article here. Not to mention of zero sources in the article which violates WP:V. Dekisugi (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the other similar 'childish' flash games have their own entries. I can't understand the above entry's animosity to this site in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mungapug (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a non-notable game lacking reliable sources unless anyone can explain otherwise. "But the other similar 'childish' flash games have their own entries" is WP:WAX and maybe these should get AfDs as well...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see further down, switched to delete) [1] and [2] scrape over the notability hurdle for me, the Jay is Games review in particular gives some good material for citations. Introducing it to the videogame project and adding categories should help get it up and running. Someone another (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All links are blog entries which are unreliable sources. Dekisugi (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're blog entries on larger sites, the writing standards of which are inherited, rather than standalone 'I didn't go to work today, felt ill' personal sites. Someone another (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look on the gadgetress' profile you'll see some photos and her explaining that she wanted an anime-style avatar, but staff are supposed to have photos - it's an endorsed post on a larger site. Jay Is Games is probably the largest and most reliable provider of flash-game information and has a staff list, I'm assuming that writer is on the staff since he has submitted a photo and has his name (I'll look at the staff list). Someone another (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find the staff list at Jay's, it's either removed or exceptionally well hidden. Regardless, the site holds awards, reviews games and is a trusted source of information for people seeking info on casual games.Someone another (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite finding two sources which I'd call reliable, only one covers the game in any depth. I've spent a lot of time combing the web for sources and those two are it. In order to write even a basic article on a video game you really need two proper reviews and good primary documentation just to nail down the basics and get some feedback for the reception section - one review, one mention and no documentation doesn't cut it. Defaulting to "'multiple' reliable sources = keep" doesn't alter the fact that there's simply not enough information to deal with the game in an encyclopedic fashion. Digg it, StumbleUpon etc. are there to provide links to entertaining sites and games, there's no burning need for this game to have a WP article if the sources aren't there. Someone another (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's odd how the majority of the content was removed, then the entry was slated for deletion. Perhaps someone simply dislikes this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.93.82 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the content was removed by me when I was rewriting the page in an attempt to save it, since the 'cultural impact' section was complete garbage, the term 'LMFAO' which had been left there for awhile summed it up. That happened after it was listed for deletion. Someone another (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2007 (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.