Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fancy Pants Adventures


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fancy Pants Adventures

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

Sources might not be reliable. ViperSnake151 21:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on what sources seem unreliable? Me and a few guys have been working with Brad (the developer) to try and get this article up for a few weeks. Wai June Lau (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ViperSnake is referring to WP's reliable sources guideline. Someoneanother 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not all the sources are particularly useful, but the Games Radar and Extreme Tech ones are fine (if very brief), but there are Jay is Games reviews for both worlds, two teeny pieces like this on IGN, it's on Kotaku and there's a review on about.com. The two Jay reviews and the about.com one are good sources and what you could call full reviews, the others can be used to get tidbits of reception from, there's more than enough there to establish notability and they're reliable IMO. Someoneanother 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I don't want to have a dig, there are numerous better ways of discussing sources than listing an article for deletion three minutes after it was created, the video game project is active and I could just as easily have pointed the above sources out there than here with a timer ticking. Someoneanother 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. No attempt at resolving the problem appears to have been made, the focus is entirely on the article's current state instead of its potential, and no indication has been given that the article is irredeemable and must be dealt using the last resort instead of the tools available to ordinary editors. I request that someone who's better at it than me would respectfully explain to ViperSnake151 why AfD is generally useless for any outcome other than deletion, and why deletion is an extreme measure. After all, the informal slogan has been for years that "AfD is not cleanup." --Kiz o r  00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep,Sources might not be reliable.  is not a valid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Someoneanother. The abovementioned sources easily establish notability for this game. Also, give the article a chance. MuZemike 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all above. AfD a whopping 3 minutes after article creation with such a flimsy reason("might not be reliable")? Come on. MLauba (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Fancy Pants Adventures has had very wide exposure for a casual or flash game, and shows up on near the top of quite a few "best of" lists. The Deletion policy says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing." It goes on to suggest that the verify tag can be used if there is a question of verifiability. verify credibility can be used to question the reliability of particular sources. Either of these would have been more appropriate than AfD in this case. --Shunpiker (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since it's been stated that the article in question is being worked on with help directly from developers, wouldn't that make this article a candidate for speedy under WP:SPAM? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was created by fans of the games who are regulars on the dev's own forum, hence 'working with' - they talk about the game. The article has already been rendered more neutral and brought in line with what video game articles should contain, there doesn't seem any point in jettisoning it just because the creators aren't fully up-to-speed with the way WP works, who is when they first start? Someoneanother 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:COI not Spam. Often the people closest to the subject are in the best position to contribute to the article, IMO. But in any case certainly not speedy. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks all. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep spurious nomination of an article that's a good start and already meets the notability requirements. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Fancy Pants Adventures is one of the most famous online games ever created. Brad Borne could sell it in the mass market if he wanted to. The sources are pretty reliable. Everything seems in check. I'm going to close this discussion. A bunch of people say keep, so why not? NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 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.