Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Flash Revolution

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep (No consensus). --§hanel 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closure was overturned at Deletion review, and the result changed to delete based on the consensus established there. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Flash Revolution[edit]

As Ashibaka said when he prodded it, there are no reliable sources. Nothing comes up in the Google news archive. No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --SPUI (T - C) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not meet the notability requirements for either WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, or WP:GAMES, whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (WP:V) by reliable source(s). --Limetom 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new article Dance Dance Revolution simulators and clones with other articles such as StepMania, Dance With Intensity, pydance, Text Text Revolution. Failing that, redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, which has a section on Simulators and clones, since the history doesn't need to be deleted from view. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 18:58Z
  • Normally I'm all in favor of deleting things as non-notable, but at this one I hesitate. It's been active for at least four years now (I think; seems like I've been playing it at least that long) and has a million logins (not users, but whatever). 1400 people are currently playing. (I am just throwing out stats that I see on the site right now.) It does not meet the cited notability threshholds, but perhaps we should consider ignoring all rules? Deltopia 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I highly doubt those stats, and that's the problem with using primary sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you highly doubt that the statistics reported by the website are accurate (e.g. number of registered accounts, number of games played, number of users online)? They're database queries, after all. Do you suspect that the administrators of FFR are (and, by inclusion, I am) being dishonest about FFR's statistics? - Chardish 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read through the first nine pages of google hits (after searching on "Flash Flash Revolution") and got a zillion links to the game, mirrors, and blogs, and virtually nothing written -about- the game. Frustrating. But without secondary sources, you're right, it lacks WP:V. Changing my vote to delete or merge. Deltopia 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep. Frustrating, yes, but as an administrator of the site, I must object. It'd be nice if we had a PR team behind the website getting us noticed in major tech blogs and news publications, but we don't. If someone doubts the number of users of our website, they can go to the forums[1] and see the vast scope of the website for themselves. We have 76,000+ active users - a number greater than DDR Freak's total number of logins. According to Alexa [2], we get more pageviews than either DDR Freak or Konami's official website - yet those two articles are certainly notable. I can also share some behind-the-scenes server statistics: this past Friday alone, FFR was played 309,757 times. FFR is kind of a web anomaly - it's not very often that such a massive community is built around a flash game. Though primary sources may not be the best sources, I'd rather use the website as a source than delete or merge the article altogether. I'd say that IAR seems to be crying out to apply to articles about subjects that are exceptions to the rule, so I'd say it applies in this instance. - Chardish 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an admin, you shouldn't be voting, but rather commenting so other people can vote. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admins can !vote the same as anyone else, though !voting prevents them from closing the AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a Wikipedia administrator, an FFR administrator. 76.178.95.219 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aha. My bad. Yes, people are generally advised to not edit article about themselves or companies where they work in order to avoid any conflict of interest. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:AFD says that it's good etiquette to disclose if one has a vested interest in the article, which I have done. There are etiquette guidelines about creating articles about a company one works for, but not about editing them or participating in their development, and certainly not about voting for them in AfD. Also, I'm a casual editor of Wikipedia in general - I'm certainly not a single-purpose shill. -Chardish 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl. --REALiTY 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This article has been around quite some time, as the website has been aswell. The site boasts over one million members, has over 300,000 active games daily, has been featured on several TV shows (Notably The Screen Savers), has been featured on several high profile blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku), and boasts music from several high profile artists, especially in the Bemani scene. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite sources. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that lightdarkness is an admin/developer for FFR. 76.178.95.219 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SPUI, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. SPUI has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past, and perhaps has a persnoal vendette against the site? I don't know, but this is a notable website, and deserves an entry on Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to throw in a good word for SPUI. I put this on prod deletion as it obviously has no sources. Someone else removed the prod without explanation just before the 5 days were up, so SPUI put it here. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect per Quarl if you must. No reliable sources. Voretustalk 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. I made the article but I honestly don't care, it sucks anyway. Moogy (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels like a bad faith vote. Why would you make an article and then later vote for its deletion? If reliable sources are important to you, shouldn't you have started the article with reliable sources to begin with? - Chardish 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was made more than two years ago. Voretustalk 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pretty notable, on par with other simulators such as StepMania. Its site has an Alexa rating of 28,256, which isn't bad. --FlyingPenguins 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa is not a source. Cite sources. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep By any common sense testthis is notable, and there seems to not be the slightest problem verifying: it exists and is a game site. The many links about the game, though none of them individually demonstrates it, seen as a group, they do. DGG 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources means that it is not notable by the primary notability criteria. No evidence that it meets WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, or WP:GAMES (which I'd never noticed before this discussion). GRBerry 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that WP:SOFTWARE and WP:GAMES are proposals, not guidelines. -Chardish 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out, though I imagine most people are already aware of that. Regardless of whether those apply, this article doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:RS, which are guidelines. As it doesn't meet WP:RS (due to only having 1st party sources), it therefore doesn't meet WP:NPOV or WP:V, which are policies. The best that can be done in this case is mention it on the other page, as indicated by others, above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Quarl or delete for lack of sources. --GunnarRene 21:44, 15 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flash_Flash_Revolution&oldid=1136112053"