Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Sand Game

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 as no sources that are non-trivial (i.e. not passing mentions) and reliable (i.e. not blogs, wikis or forum posts) were found to refute the nomination and satisfy policy (specifically verifiability). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Sand Game

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable web game. No independent verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not a game guide. – Anþony talk 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB/WP:GAMES. Borderline speedy. MER-C 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable web game. Koweja 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP may not be a game guide, but neither is this article. Even so, the notability isn't proven nor is it sourced well enough. I'd really rather not see this go, but Delete unless these problems are fixed. -Ryanbomber 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability proven below. Keep. -Ryanbomber 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:WEB. // I c e d K o l a 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a good example of how NOT to get publicity for a non-notable amateur computer game. Maddy626 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually came to Wikipedia today looking for info about this game and was suprised to see it up for deletion. Google the phrase "Hell of sand" or look at the history of edits of this page. No page that was as non-notable as you all claim could have such a variety of edits. DevanJedi 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be moved to the video games and computer games wikiproject but not deleted. I am busy tracking down the notable references, but it may take longer than five days. Also, considering this article does not point to a particular game exclusively, it can hardly be considered a promotion for a particular game. What it does is discuss a sub-genre of what I would consider the puzzle game genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.48.159.136 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I also should add that I actually came upon this by searching for information while having no idea what a falling sand game was. References and sources can be found, but not if the article is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.159.136 (talk • contribs) 04:54, December 26, 2006 (UTC)
  - How does deleting this article affect these supposed independent reliable sources? Why would finding them take longer than five days? If you can't find a reliable source within five days, the more likely conclusion is that such sources don't exist. – Anþony talk 07:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is a paradise for little children to learn cause and effect. Even if you see this Falling Sand Game as only a game, for me this game can help children to learn some new things, look to world in a totally different way. I favor to keep this article by improving it and adding additional information about it. — Pls1pls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Neither commercial in nature nor a true gaming guide, this entry provides useful information on the history of the game and the components which comprise it. — 74.132.128.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GAMES/WP:WEB :3-DE SU 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Conditionally - but only if this game garners more attention in the next year. If not, flush it. Jamehec 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is useful for the people who play the game, giving guides as to how to play or what to, it is also advertising, earning money for creators who can lead their lives. And it is only useful to those who play the game, but then again, what would happen if we deleted the creationism article because it was useless to atheists and gentiles of the christian faith. Neod4000 21:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC) — Neod4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What? First of all, WP:NOT wiki is not a place to advertise. Second of all, there's a difference between notability and usefulness. Argue creationism's "usefulness" all you want, but you can't deny it's notability. This game has yet to be proven that it is notable. If you want to save it, find sources. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I think this meets the standards for notability - it meets part one of WP:GAMES in that other "sand" games have been made that were heavily inspired by (but different in authorship from) the original game. --Chris Mounce 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The first criterion is about works which discuss the game, so that we may cite those sources in this article. Derivative works do not treat the original as a subject, nor are they truly independent. The works must also be published non-trivially -- that is, they should be subjected to some editorial process which filters out unimportant topics and checks for accuracy. – Anþony talk 10:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a wiki that discusses the game. The game is mentioned on about.com in their list of "Top Ten Time Wasters on the Web." There's at least one messageboard, which I already linked to. When it came out, it was prominent on community sites - the article lists Fark and Digg, but I remember seeing it on the front page of del.icio.us, as well. It had prominent placement in GGL's article Utterly Pointless, Utterly Addictive. It's mentioned on countless blogs. As far as I can tell, all of these are talking about the game. --Chris Mounce 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The About.com gallery is the epitome of trivial mentions, explained below. Messageboards, blogs, Wikis, del.icio.us, all fail WP:RS. The only one left is GGL, because I've never heard of it and can't determine if it's a reliable source on face value. So there's potentially one source for the article. – Anþony talk 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game meets notability as noted above. It's a bit silly to delete this. Kuroji 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came by to close this debate, but I decided to !vote instead. It looks to me like we have notability, especially with the about.com mention, and I don't see any other argument for deletion other than an allegation that it's not notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The about.com "article" is actually a gallery of images, with a one-sentence caption: "Soothing, relaxing, and quiet, the Falling Sand Game is a great way to be creative and relax at the same time." If that's not a trivial mention, I don't know what is. Even if you accept that the subject is notable, the article still fails WP:V because there are no sources cited. – Anþony talk 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A mention on about.com is more than sufficient to establish notability. Your zeal to delete this article is noted, but it's time to accept that other users may disagree, rather than trying to argue with everyone who is !voting to keep. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think I really need to point it out, but it's a discussion, not a vote. In most discussions, there's a natural back-and-forth of exchanging ideas and arguments. I do accept that others disagree, but I don't see what's wrong with pointing out flaws in their reasoning or details they've overlooked. Most especially, I'd rather not have new users come into the discussion and see these weak claims go unchallenged as truth. Claiming that the game has been mentioned on About.com does seem like an indication of notability as long as you don't explain what that mention was.
    - Additionally, a lot of the keep votes are coming from SPAs or rarely used accounts using spurious reasoning related to WP:ILIKEIT. This is undoubtably due to at least one version linking directly to the Wikipedia article as directions for how to play the game. Editors who have participated in this AfD while basing their decision on the policies and practices of Wikipedia have mostly voted to delete. – Anþony talk 02:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Awesome ad hominem and sweeping generalization. The article has a source now, which is the only problem this AFD had. So why is it still open? -Ryanbomber 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please assume good faith. I was merely pointing out that the discussion is not as clear-cut as a simple head-count would lead you to believe. It bears mentioning that WP:WEB requires multiple sources and there are still problems with WP:V and WP:NOT. Regardless, the AfD is due to be closed anyway and the final determination is up to the closing admin, which I will not contest. – Anþony talk 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The game was also mentioned on Rocketboom [1], which makes two sources and a notable subject. The article in its current state is not an instruction manual (see past versions), nor is it excessively promotional, so I can't see any problems on the WP:NOT front. Verifiability problems would be better corrected by linking to stuff like this rather than deleting the entire article, which seems a bit extreme to me. But as you said, it's in an admin's hands. --Chris Mounce 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I wasn't not assuming good faith. I was pointing out a flawed argument. Even if there is Sockpuppetry going on, if the argument is good then what's the problem? -Ryanbomber 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anþony, please watch your language and tone. As to this AfD, your complaints about verifiability are unfounded; we have no doubt that the game itself exists, as we can verify this by pointing directly to a site that hosts it. If some of the information in the article is itself unverified, it can be removed, or it can be tagged with {{citation needed}}, but deletion is not appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Very notable. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:02, 28 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.