Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boson (computer game)


 * 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 Speedy close, relist individually (WP:SNOW). --Fang Aili talk 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Boson (computer game)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I can find no evidence that these games are notable as Wikipedia defines it: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Therefore, I propose that we delete them. To avoid any perception of a conflict of interest or some kind of bias on my part, I will note that a) I tagged all of these and a few more for PROD; the tags were removed by various editors, which is why I've brought the debate here and b) these articles were brought to my attention after my deletion of Super Mario War as non-notable. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of concerns about notability:


 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P M <font color="#000000">C&spades; 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely my point: Wikipedia's policies are very exacting, and if followed to the letter relatively few articles would survive your deletion policy! A lot, in fact *most* games do not have "multiple non-trivial published works" associated with them. And especially older games, like "Castle Adventure," which you've tagged for deletion, would've had no "professional recognition" whatsoever. By deleting these are articles you are helping no one. I think you should focus your energies on proper classification of articles (which you admins have been doing a good job of so far).

Consider this, in the optimal case, with "perfect" classification of all information on Wikipedia, there would be no need to delete articles, since people will always find what they are looking for. The less "perfect" our classification, the more articles we will need to delete in order to ensure that things are still easy to find. Information is very strongly classified on Wikipedia, as I see it, so only articles that are blatantly useless should be deleted. Mindthief 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think these articles should be bundled together in one AfD. Unless I'm mistaken, all these games have in common is that they are games and that the nominator feels they're insufficiently notable. I don't see how that falls under the guidelines given here. Relist individually. Heimstern Läufer 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist a few at a time individually, please :( Whilst the articles may have a common flaw, notability (at least so it seems at first glance), they are individual subjects which need individual attention. A similar AFD with wrestling moves a few days ago resulted in nothing more than a lot of noise and no consensus whatsoever. I wholeheartedly agree that there are too many non-notable web/casual/MMOG etc. games catching free traffic from WP, and intend listing several myself after becoming familiar with listing AFDs. However, I seriously doubt anything productive is going to come out of this group nomination - I tried looking at some games individually, but picking through websites takes time and effort. Please consider this. QuagmireDog 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, like QuagmireDog, I'd be quite willing to consider these articles for deletion individually, but putting them all together like this doesn't make for a useful discussion. Heimstern Läufer 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative being contributors arguing about the nomination more than the actual articles. Seen it before, we're all reasonable human beings, I'm sure we can discuss these individually, sort the wheat from the chaff and locate sources for the ones which are notable. QuagmireDog 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in no position to comment on most of the titles you have nominated for deletion, but I can say that at least one title is a notable package. It is actively developed, has departed significantly from other related games, and is a very popular title in the Linux community. I'm not sure I see the harm in maintaining its article on Wikipedia. pbryan 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist individually. I would definitely consider Frozen Bubble to be notable, and I plan to fight for Konquest and some others, but there is no way I can pass judgment on all these titles at the same time. -- Groggy Dice T | C 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please re-list. Frozen Bubble, for example, is quite notable. Andre (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and relist individually per everyone. JuJube 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and relist individually per above. Except Liquid War. Why anyone things that would be listed for deletion is beyond me. It's actually won an award, and apparently been redistributed in many magazine, according to the homepage. Never should have been on the list to begin with.--Planetary 02:24, 24 January 2007 (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.