Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxhead


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Boxhead

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. I've searched several times, and I can't find anything to demonstrate the notability of these flash games. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, because I don't know whether to support or oppose - I'm on the fence. I did, however, find two news articles, on Wired and Macworld, along with several pages referencing the game in Japanese and French - but since I can't read either language, I don't know if they are notable or not. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - verifiable (through the Wired and Macworld sources), but not necessarily notable. Right now I think the best move is to redirect to List of browser games. Marasmusine (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete They're apparently all non-notable with the possible exception of Zombie Wars, which was released on iPhone, thus getting a review on Slide to Play. A review on Jay is Games has been kicking around for yonks (it's a review of the original flash version), so yes there are sources. Since one is a flash review and the other is an iPhone review, it's not even possible to put them side by side when it comes to reception because they're looking at different versions. While 'multiple' is usually accepted as meaning more than one when it comes to notability, in this instance I don't think it's workable, hence weak delete. Someoneanother 02:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Someone. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (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.