Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grow (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 delete. Core desat 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grow (game)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is all original research, though it's been discussed, no reliable sources have been produced. Really looks more like a promotion or advertisement than anything else. Craigtalbert (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- discussion here makes me think someone is trying to find anything to establish notability rather than making a good faith effort to look through sources entirely. That makes me feel sad. Epthorn (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The games have appeared on G4TV and been mentioned in the The Christian Science Monitor. One of these games was commissioned by the Shibaura Institute of Technology. The games have influenced game design in a competition sponsored by Jay Is Games. While I appreciate that search engine placement may not fulfil WP notability guidelines, I would suggest that the sole search term "grow" resulting in these games being the first result rather than pages on growth suggests significant popularity. For these reasons I contend that this article should be kept. --Lox (t,c) 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I looked at the CSM article with anticipation that I would be proved wrong yet again but the article indeed only mentioned the game(s), rather than feature them. I agree that the search results "suggest significant popularity" but as you said, that may not fulfill notability guidelines in and of itself. An internet flash game will be very likely to be up there in search results because of its nature. I googled 'burger shop' [] and the flash game came up before any "real life" institution. If the game is so popular and notable it shouldn't be so hard to find external secondary sources that talk about it in depth, should it?Epthorn (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you for looking at the CSM article; I appreciate that it is not a feature, but contend it still suggests notability. I certainly do not claim that this game is very popular, but feel that blogs or sites that promote the games (i.e. sites that are not just mirrors of the games) and the influence of the games in the competition cited above and other games are what suggest notability. --Lox (t,c) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * delete wikipedia isn't google. every flash game with a fan base doesn't get to have an article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakest possible delete as naturally WP:ILIKEIT. This really is the basis of a burgeoning genre of flash games and is both enormously popular and ridiculously cute. I will happily change my vote to keep in a jiffy if we can underline that with reliable sources, but this seems to have been a blog-only phenomenon so far. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 10 December 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.