Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumper!

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 08:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper!

Non-notable game. Al 00:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete Google for jumper "helix games" gets only 200 results. Seems like a cult game. Ashibaka (tock) 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete as per above. Wow... someone actually decided to improve on Berzerk *yawn* Roodog2k 01:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder, is this some kind of spam? Alr 01:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 01:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As notable as a good portion of our content, like small schools, tiny villages in Europe, broadcast towers, etc. Is well written and is linked to. It would be notable if it were a cult game. -- Reinyday, 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's actually not linked to. All of the links are user pages, VFD pages, and a single article about another game by the same creator. (That last link is just a see-also.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it matter if a tiny village is in Europe? They should be treated as any other American village. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - That is exactly my point. I hate when well written articles are called "non-notable". We don't know when that content will be wanted. If people want it, they will search for it or click links to it. If they don't, they won't. It is a loss for the Wikipedia when we delete good articles. -- Reinyday, 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above. A rather good read IMHO DV8 2XL 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn game. ManoaChild 02:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and as noteable as other content on site, 200 results is easily enough to keep something on here. Not redundant it also needs to be rewritten for perspective.--Machtzu 05:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Not sure whether this is notable enough for a "Keep", but I see no reason for deleting it either, once someone has taken the time to write it (and quite well too). Kiss L 08:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Surely there are thousands of other entries more deserving of our wrath? --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I would argue that it's well-written, at least marginally notable (200 hits isn't glory, but it's not vanity or nonexistance either), and seemingly-significant to some populaation segment. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colors as well.--Vengeful Cynic 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pokemon test? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Is it as or more notable than an individual Pokemon character?" Most Pokemon stubs have been merged because this was a notorious VfD joke, but the individual character (e.g. Charmander) is still a good marker for just bare notability. Ashibaka (tock) 22:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to be careful about that, as there are a LOT of Pokémon that have appeared in two games and maybe one episode of the anime. Charmander isn't a bad breakpoint for notability (I use Professor Frink as my personal test), but then you have Beldum or Trapinch... - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-written article about a notable game. I actually have the game, and the article taught me a lot of new things about it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - This is a freeware game made with a "make your own game" toolset. I'm ambivalent about its notability, but please don't confuse this with a game published by a major publisher. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a decision. Homebrew games with no specific extraordinary claim or attribute are not notable. Delete. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuredly not notable. And, last time I checked, being well-written didn't give an article a pass on being deleted. Al 22:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete I don't like spam! And spam it is. Read the last two paragraphs The JCP is still under production. We have most of the programming done, and are now focusing on the creation of new levels. Some of the JCP-only objects that are available in the editor cannot be talked about until the JCP's release, but I assure you, anyone who was a fan of the official Jumper! games will love them! Spam spam spam spam spam. Sabine's Sunbird 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to change it if you don't like it, or add a {{cleanup-tone}} tag. Deletion is not the way to deal with POV issues. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well-wrtiten is not a keep criterion. Zoe 06:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Machtza.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Delete The sheer obscurity of Jumper is not, in my opinion, reason enough to delete it. The following stuff is: First, it doesn't seem to provide much information one can't get from helixgamesinc.com or jumper fan sites. Also, the entire JCP section sounds like a sales pitch. I honestly think Jumper should have a wikipedia article, but not an ad campaign within Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.142.107 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}. Personally, I think it's a non-notable subject, but if you feel it is a notable subject, expand and establish notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really know enough about it to expand the article. (If I did, why would I have tried to look it up?). Also, I'll admit I don't really know much about how Wikipedia works, but what exactly would be the point of expanding and revising an article that's about to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.142.107 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not necessarily about to be deleted. AFD isn't an automatic death sentence, just a review to see if the article is worth keeping. If an article is rewritten to demonstrate notability, it generally ends up being kept. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many less notable games have articles. --Nicodemus75 10:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote keep on those? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? --Nicodemus75 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you feel that there's are legitmately less-notable games that deserve keeping, your logic is consistent. If it's only because those less-notable games' articles haven't been deleted yet, it's not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly verifiable and encyclopedic. The JCP section needs some serious cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. I can easily imagine someone playing the game and deciding to look for more information about it here. The name of the article does not seem to conflict with any other topics. Therefore, there is an advantage to keeping it, and no disadvantage to keeping it. Factitious 11:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.