Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of Video Gaming


 * 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 Keep. There seems to be some argument as to whether this content should be merged with Newgrounds. Such a keep vs. merge debate can be done outside of AfD if need be. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Decline of Video Gaming
Only claim to notability is a "large following within the gaming community". This is both unlikely (R vs B has a following; not so much this) and unreferenced. Even if it were accurate, I don't think it's particularly notable. --maru  (talk)  contribs 05:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) -Goldom (t) (Review) 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does honestly look to be among the best-known series on a very well known website. Pages list "over 1 million views". Notable enough for me. Also, that this article was listed for this reason doesn't sit well with me: see Talk:Video Gamerz. (Even though I voted delete on that AfD, this one appears far more notable). Needs cleanup of course though.
 * Elaborating I know some people would consider anything going on at a site like Newgrounds "meaningless internet cruft", and this isn't to say I like the material, but the fact is that that site is very, very popular, Alexa rating in the 500s, so I think that the most popular material on a popular site would, by association, be notable. -Goldom (t) (Review) 09:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Notable on newgrounds... which is why there's nothing wrong with discussing the most popular newgrounds entries on the newgrounds article. Just don't create special articles just for them. - Motor (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A good point. I suppose the question is whether it has popularity outside the Newgrounds crowd.. if not, then I'd say a merge&redirect is in order. -Goldom (t) (Review) 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research about some non-notable flashcruft. - Motor (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the "Decline" series is a Newgrounds staple, with over a million views apiece and receiving assorted viewer's choice, features and crew awards. It's in the upper tier so far as "notability" in its medium goes. Papacha 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This was very popular on newgrounds. I believe it reached the top of whatever lists they have over there. more noteworthy than a lot of flash's we have in here Ydam 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Delete After consideration I've come to realise that this really doesn't meet requirements for inclusion Ydam 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is at least marginally notable, and the article is well-written. --Coredesat 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: One of the most notable Flash series on the net. Possibly one of the top 10 IMO, but maybe more around top 25. --SeizureDog 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough. Adambiswanger1 14:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is one of the more popular series on Newgrounds, yes.  But I'm not 100% sure being notable on NG is the same as being notable in general.  Unlike several other NG flashes that have pages, I haven't seen this one much outside of it. --UsaSatsui 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non-notable newgroundscruft/gamescruft fancruft junkcruft nonnotablecruft. Just because something seems "popular", doesn't automatically give it encyclopedic status Bwithh 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless.  Erik the Rude 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note-notable, useless. --Starionwolf 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Goldom. I would also suggest that Bwithh tone down the derogatory slang. --JJay 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If its big on Newgrounds, mention it at Newgrounds.  Insignificant fads like this come and go, and then are rightfully forgotten. -- GWO
 * Delete all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures. Sandstein 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough flash. Voice of Treason 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Over 1 million views is I feel enough for something to be notable. Wikipedia is not paper, and the article seems reasonably well written. Why delete it? Mrjeff 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, by what measure? Is it unique views? The only source of this claim is newgrounds. And while Wikipedia is not paper, it's not newgrounds either, nor is a place for plugging assorted flash animations. A notable flash animation is almost a contradiction in terms really, unless you happen to be talking about those JibJab presidential spoofs that were all over the press. - Motor (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nowadays I personally consider flash animations the same I would consider films. True, we don't know exactly what that 1 million means, I hadn't thought of that. But if an amateur film had been seen by 100,000 people, would that be a big enough audience to be worth having a wikipedia page about? Mrjeff 12:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Nowadays, I need reliable sources to show that is notable... not vigorous assertions from its creators. It also fails WP:WEB, BTW. It comes back to the point I made originally: notable on newgrounds does not mean notable anywhere else, and since Wikipedia is not a directory for newgrounds... keep it on the newgrounds article where it belongs. If it turns into a JibJab style subject that is notable by itself, then recreate it. - Motor (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. --Musicpvm 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Extremely notible. Its popular outside of the newgrounds community. Besides, if Decline of Video Gaming is deleted because it is "all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures", then why do Madness Combat, Maximum Ninja, and Xiao Xiao still have articles? They were/are just "all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures". -- J Assassin 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, user has only one edit and it is to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would also like to add here that WP:VERIFY is not an option on Wikipedia. It is a policy requirement. The subject of this article, at the moment, has no presence outside of newgrounds and a few mentions on personal websites. It has no notablity, and it fails WP:WEB. It is basically a description of some flash animations that someone saw and decided to describe in a Wikipedia article. Arguments comparing it to other flash animations are irrelevant, and is just arguing for some kind of lowest common denominator. We have to judge this article on its own merits and against the policy requirements of Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2006 (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.