Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable independently developed fan game. Content is unverifiable by reliable, second party sources. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a couple of perfectly acceptable sources in the external links, this and this (Derek Yu) are in the first 2 pages of google results. A small article on it takes up most of page 111 in issue 193 of PC Zone UK. Someoneanother 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And this and this and this and this. You did look? Someoneanother 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Sources do verify notability of this article. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per supplied sources. Clearly meets WP:N, fan created or not.  Hobit (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. Several of those stories clearly satisfy WP:VG's reliable sources guidelines. Did you use google or attempt to research this subject? The only true statement in the deletion rationale is, "independently developed fan game". The rest is completely false. SashaNein (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why weren't these sites listed as references in the first place? The article itself should attest to its notability through proper citations, which it does not. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one got to it? In general you should do a web search (news, web, books) before sending something to AfD.  Saves everyone so>me time...  Many (a majority?) of articles here lack sources.   Doesn't mean they all should come to AfD Hobit (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So? FIX IT. SashaNein (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact is that no one took the initiative to fix it, and so here we all are. MuZemike (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, the onus is on the nominator to at least try and find sources first. In this case there were already two sources in the external links, which is often where they're located in unpolished articles, another which I'd cited in April (in order to prevent this) and another on the talk page since March, a maintainence tag is all that's needed. It's not the end of the earth that it was nominated and I'm not trying to dump on anyone, but I am not going to run around like a blue-arsed fly and spend time I haven't got on repairing the article when enough sources were already there and could have been weighed up in a couple of minutes. Someoneanother 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Nom's reason for deletion falls through upon cursory examination. Jtrainor (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Game is notable and has an internet presence as others have stated. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Game is absolutely notable and is a popular user-created game. Ajohnson170 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.157.2 (talk)


 * 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.