Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Fun Day


 * 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 (NAC).  American Eagle  ( talk ) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Fun Day

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

Non-notable flash game; the sources are all blogs or similar; could not establish notability from a reliable source through Googling  Chzz  ►  23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - My initial reaction was "Oh brother, yet another browser flash game." But surprisingly, there is coverage in reliable sources.  It's reviewed in Wired, and actually was also reviewed in dead tree press. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw that the Wired piece was a blog (as indicated at the top) and thus thought it would not be a reliable source. Is that incorrect? Because the dead tree press reference is really a very quick passing mention in an editorial - not even an entire paragraph. Do you think that these two establish notability?  Chzz  ►  05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a mistake. See Wired (magazine) and Wired News for more information on why it's a reliable source. You may also be interested in WP:BLOGS. Blogs can be reliable if they're related to publications with a solid track record. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What Mgm said. Blog in this context is really what would be called a "column" in traditional newspapers excpect it doesn't sound as hip or cool.  AS for the VUE article, you should read it again.  The entire article is about the game.  It isn't a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think in the context of an online flash game, websites like Kotaku and Jayisgames are reliable sources. So, I'd say this has sufficient sourcing to pass the notability test. Robofish (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If policy arguments can be made, I'd happily withdraw - however, WP:BLOGS is not policy, it's just a proposal. As regards the above keep, I am unaware of the reliability of sources being dependent on context. As I say, I'm happy to be corrected, if someone can point me to the relevant policy etc. that supports keeping it.  Chzz  ►  03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:BLOGS is being pointed out here as an official policy or guideline. At least I am not.  But the point that is being put across is that something that is called a "Blog" in an established publication such as Wired is a very different animal than WHPQ's blog on games. -- Whpq (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Game seems to have received sufficient reception, backed up by reliable sources which allowed it to pass the Good article review. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.