Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StepMania (2nd nomination)

StepMania

Non-notable video game. Use of source code to create a display in a non-notable museum exhibit does not establish notability. No external sources to produce verifiability. Chardish 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this game popular and well known. -Icewedge 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources brought up in the first AFD?--Chaser - T 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to be dismissive, but those aren't in the article (with the exception of the museum one.) I would add them myself, but I don't really see how they establish notability: one is a short review in a local paper, another is a passing reference in an article about a piece in a museum exhibit, the third reference is merely a summary of the second, and the others are merely articles about the museum exhibit that don't even mention StepMania. Unless there is something inherently notable about the museum exhibit (and there's not), I don't see how those are enough to justify notability. - Chardish 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Museum is notable enough for an article, and it was the engine behind In the Groove (video game). Article was speedy-kept 9 months ago. --SarekOfVulcan 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is popular and lots of people play it, not to mention it being a source engine for several other DDR type games. Liempt 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the game engine for two notable commercial video games; In The Groove (video game) and Pump It Up Pro. That alone establishes notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>}
- Notability is not inherited - the subject of the article must be notable independently of all other subjects. - Chardish 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly notable free PC game that's appeared in a number of reliable sources. Moogy^(talk) 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources? - Chardish 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable and already kept from previous AfD. Second paragraph establishes notability. Or am I that biased because I play this game a lot? -- Kl4m ^{T C} 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's well known and popular. I don't see how it doesn't meet the notability. Cocoma 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT: Everyone simply saying "it's well known and popular" - that doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. You have to prove objectively that it is well known and popular. That means finding reliable sources that establish the game's notability. Of course a game is going to be considered "well known and popular" by its subculture; we need specific proof of that. - Chardish 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shouldn't you be making it as a comment instead of bolding or enlarging all your text? And by the way, your user page states that you are a site administrator at Flash Flash Revolution. Your afd is a WP:COI. Cocoma 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this AfD relates at all to FFR. It's not like I have anything to hide. - Chardish 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as [an administrator], has competing professional or personal interests." Wikipedia's own definition of the subject. You have something to gain by this page being deleted (namely, less "word" about the competition), since you are an administrator of a rival program. In any case, there's no reason to delete this page whatsoever. There are many, MANY pages on far less notable software; are you saying we should delete every one of them? This page is informational and encyclopedic, and therefore should stay. Keep. HoCkEy PUCK 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]