Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubble Fun


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. A note to Frank6783: if there are other articles you feel are also non-notable, you can also start AfDs on them, but read this first. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bubble Fun
Delete as nn-game. Alexa rank for pcpuzzles.com where this game is hosted is >1,000,000. Alexa rank for Amok Entertainment (creator of the game) is >400,000. Google hits for the game tied to Amok Entertainment number 28. This is just one of millions of flash games out there. Article as it stands makes no claim of any kind to notability and why this game stands out as notable from the millions of other flash games. I previously speedy deleted this article, but the creator re-created it again. Running AfD now as a means to definitely clarify the status. --Durin 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kukini 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Frank6783

I think this game deserves to be listed because it has a unique game concept. Take a look at these reviews:

http://www.pcpuzzles.com/bubblefun-highscore

"I've seen this gametype for the first time and I think it's very innovative." Overall Score: 8 The_Hidden on Newgrounds.com

"It's an amazing work of beauty, from the layout, to the actual game... it's one in a million." Overall Score: 10 Poop4brains on Newgrounds.com

''Bubble Fun is the Michael Jordan of flash puzzles. Its beyond awesome.'' Overall Score: 10 Hard-kore on Newgrounds.com

'This game is a great mind-bender. Even beyond game playing it's addicting to watch the permutations of chain reactions as control of the board changes between the players.'' Avi Muchnick (aka JaxomLOTUS) of Worth1000.com

Also, it's shareware which means the game is available on dozens of websites, not just the PCpuzzles site. Here are some examples:

http://www.addictinggames.com/bubblefun.html http://www.ugotgames.com/bubblefun.php (among the top 5 most popular games) http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=172233 (silver medal award) http://www.gtds.net/Bubble-Fun/ http://www.funflashgames.com/bubblefun.htm http://www.milkandcookies.com/article/2935/

Alexa traffic rank for Newgrounds.com: 596 Alexa traffic rank for Addictinggames.com: 1224 Alexa traffic rank for Milkandcookies.com: 5736


 * Delete as non-notable. Wait. Does a review by someone called Poop4brains count as notable? No, it does not. Gw e rnol 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn game Stev0 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete (already voted) Frank6783

Just because someone has a silly username doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count. Try actually playing the game before blindly deleting it. It's a very unique game concept.

"Something totally original and fun." Overall Score: 9 Master1n0 on Newgrounds.com

"That's like nothing I've ever seen before! I'd say it's a lot better than old games. It's really addictive." Overall Score: 9 InvaderHaanzi on Newgrounds.com

''This game is absolute genius! Horribly addicting!'' Overall Score: 10 The_Mad_Prophet on Newgrounds.com

"Very original and well presented." Overall Score: 9 over_clock on Newgrounds.com

"Simply amazing. Thanks for the new fun game." Overall Score: 9 -Krossroads- on Newgrounds.com

"Awesome game, and awesome idea." Overall Score: 10 Pink_Floyd on Newgrounds.com

Best puzzle game ever made! Overall Score: 10 Cheesycake on Newgrounds.com

"I didn't think it could be done but you actually made a non-violent game that's fun!" Overall Score: 10 Xtama on Newgrounds.com


 * Comment My point was not that the username was silly (though it is) but that user opinions on open forums don't make the case for notability. You need to provide verifiable sources and you need to add them to the article, not here. For example, has the game had been reviewed by one of the leading reputable game magazines? If so, provide a link to the review. As far as I can tell none of the links above is that, so none of them show this game is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Gw e rnol 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a few reviews by random people do not make this flash game notable. michael <span


 * Comment Frank6783

But isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that the opinions and contributions of unpaid volunteers and regular citizens are of equal, if not greater, value than that of some paid editor? Case in point: how many of you who voted for deletion actually played the game? Shouldn't the opinions of people who did play it hold some value?

And shouldn't the fact that Bubble Fun is available on many popular high-traffic game sites and the fact that so many users gave it rave reviews account for something and lift it above the countless pacman, space invaders, and tetris clones you usually find on game sites? How about if I add this to the entry:

"Bubble Fun is noteworthy for its unique concept and being the first game to combine the satisfaction of popping virtual bubble wrap with a strategic element."
 * Speedy Delete per nom as recreated SD'd article; how about if I add that a list of alleged reviews from anonymous reviewers doesn't establish, and has no bearing upon, notability? Nor is notability established by us playing the game, or any other irrelevant factor.  Ravenswing 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Frank6783

Being the first of its kind doesn't make it notable? Wasn't Tetris notable for being the first of its kind?

And I find these comments trying to disqualify the opinions of those people who actually played the game and gave it positive reviews a bit elitist. How are your opinions more valuable than their opinions? Isn't this the type of attitute Wikipedia is faced with so often, when people dismiss Wikipedia as nothing more than a bunch of unqualified volunteers? Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the opinions of dozens of Newsgrounds users and webmasters who reviewed the game? If all those Newgrounds users became editors at Wikipedia, would that suddenly make their opinions more valuable?

Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games How do any of these games qualify to be listed in Wikipedia as "noteworthy" but Bubble Fun doesn't? Bubble Fun has a unique game concept. Most of the games on that list do not. They're mostly clones of each other or of older game concepts.


 * Delete Non-notable game. Sorry, I haven't seen anything in the arguments above to say this one's special, even if "Cheesycake" really, really liked it. Fan1967 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Frank6783

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatris Hatris gameplay is similar to Tetris

Hatris is a Tetris clone. How is that "noteworthy"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28game%29 The gameplay is a mixture between SameGame and Tetris.

How is Collapse noteworthy?

What makes the games on this list noteworthy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games

They're almost all clones of each other, yet they're listed in Wikipedia. By the same standard Bubble Fun should be listed. In fact it has more merit to be listed than a bunch of Tetris and Bejeweled clones, because it is not a clone but an original. But I guess presenting a logical argument for the inclusion of Bubble Fun is a lost cause, because you guys have made up your mind without ever even looking at the game.


 * Comment It would really help if you actually looked at Wikipedia's standards before posting the same argument over and over and over again. It would also help if you would actually read what people write before replying. Originality is not a standard for an article to be retained. Notability is. You could have the most original game in the world, played by six people, and it would not qualify for an article. Can you provide evidence on the number of people playing this game that would make it comparable to the other listed games? Fan1967 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Frank6783 I listed a bunch of high traffic websites with very high Alexa ratings who all feature this game. Those sites get millions of visitors. The site Newgrounds.com is the source of the reviews I quoted, and it's listed as #596 in Alexa. How much higher do you want to set the standard for notability? And do all those other puzzle game clones listed in Wikipedia meet that standard?


 * Comment but these Alexa rankings provide notability for the sites, not for the game hosted on them. I could upload software to download.com (which is one of the highest traffic websites there is) and 3 people might download it. Does that mean my software is notable? No. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and in particular look at the criteria for including websites. Can you provide sources that show that Bubble Fun meets any of these criteria? Has it for example "... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." or has it "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation."? If you can show it meeting one or more of the notability criteria then people will change their opinion. By the way, insulting the very people whose mind you seek to change is a highly ineffective approach to getting what you want... Good luck, Gw e rnol 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Frank6783 been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The game has been published on dozens of popular websites. You say the high Alexa rankings provide notability for those sites, correct? So we established that numerous notable sources have published the game.

I understand your analogy about uploading a file on Download.com, which is not downloaded by anyone, but the many player reviews prove that a lot of people have played the game. And the fact that many different webmasters commented on the game or published the game also shows that this is not just a file downloaded by only 3 people.


 * Comment I provided you the link to the web notability guidelines and a summary of the specific criterion that you quote. Please read it carefully. Appearing on a website like Newgrounds.com does not count as being "...the subject of a non-trivial published work" (emphasis mine). The criterion "includes newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". In other words it is referring to reviews of work published in reputable non-web sources. Again, go back to what I said before: if your game had been reviewed in a major print magazine or on TV it would be notable. Simply appearing on a high-traffic website that is an indescriminate collection of web games does not provide notability for the game. Sorry, Gw e rnol 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question to continue the analagy of download.com, that site provides statistics on how many people download a particular piece of software. I get the impression that many of these sites, again like download.com, pretty much include any game that's offered to them, so merely being offered on a site isn't, in itself, an endorsement. Do any of these sites provide statistics on how many people play each game? Fan1967 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, there isn't anything notable (that's the Wikipedia definition of notable) about this game. Blogs/web forum reviews count for nothing. - Motor (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn game, go have fun playing it. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable GassyGuy 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and also AfD Amok Entertainment as a non-notable creator of Flash games. My regards to Frank6783, who has obviously put a lot of effort into trying to keep this article, but the fact remains that the game (and the company which created it) are insufficiently important for WP articles. -- Kicking222 02:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Frank6783

Please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniax

And please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOXit

Then please explain to me how this game is more notable than Bubble Fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrickShooter

We can go through the entire list on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games

Tetris (the game that started the genre) Bejeweled (aka Diamond Mine) Biniax BOXit BrickShooter Bubble Burst by Zango Bubble Fun by Amok Entertainment Chainz Collapse Columns Devet Diamond Crush Dr. Mario Gorby's Pipeline (for MSX and NES) Hatris Magic Jewelry (Columns-clone for NES) Klax Lines (aka ColorLines) Lumines Magical Drop Meteos Money Puzzle Exchanger (aka Money Idol Exchanger) Panel de Pon (aka Tetris Attack and Pokémon Puzzle League) Puzzle Bobble (aka Bust-a-Move) Puyo Puyo (aka Kirby's Avalanche or Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine) SameGame Sega Swirl Snood Squarez Squarez Deluxe Picross Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo Tetris 2 (aka Tetris Flash) Uo Poko Wario's Woods Welltris Wordtris Yoshi Yoshi's Cookie Zoop [edit] Maze/obstacle course navigation Abashera Atomix (for C64, Amiga, PC etc.) Bomberman ChuChu Rocket! Kuru Kuru Kururin Kururin Paradise Marble Drop Marble Madness Mercury Oxyd Pac-Man series (Ms. Pac-Man et al.) Polarium Puzznic Road Blocks Rush Hour SnakeSlider Sokoban Theseus and the Minotaur Kye [edit] Hidden object Black Box (game) Minesweeper MineSweeper3D [edit] Single character control Bombuzal Eggerland series Krusty's Fun House Oddworld series Professor Fizzwizzle Pushover Repton Deadly Rooms of Death [edit] Multiple character control Gobliiins! Lemmings The Lost Vikings Pingus Pitman (aka Power Paws) for the GameBoy [edit] Construction Bridge Builder The Incredible Machine Picross (aka Mario's Picross) Pipe Mania [edit] Multiple puzzle types Are we There Yet? The Fool's Errand WarioWare, Inc. [edit] Collections 1001 Lines Microsoft Entertainment Pack Zillions of Games Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection [edit] Interactive Word Games Word Sandwich [edit] Other Cuyo Mr Driller Seven Seas Shanghai solitaire Snakes

There is absolutely nothing "notable" about any of the games listed there, with the exception of Tetris and Lemmings. Yet, somehow those hurdles, hoops and strict interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines you impose on Bubble Fun don't seem to apply to any of the other Flash puzzle games listed in Wikipedia.

Now, if I were to strictly apply Wikipedia "notability guidelines" to all the games on that list, and deleted 95% of the games on that list, that would be considered vandalism, not proper editing, right? I have to admit, the logic here escapes me. I guess that's why I'm just a "newbie" and you guys are the "experts."


 * 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.