Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapland (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hapland
Flash game that seems like it fails WP:WEB/WP:RS/WP:V. Was previous nominated HERE, but the only comments were keeps with comments regarding its number of google hits. Wickethewok 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the external links section has almost as many lines as the article does, it seems more like spam. The game does not seem notable and is using wikipedia as an avenue to gain awareness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) (sorry about that) Chris Kreider 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per first AfD. Entering neutral vote. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason on the first AFD was "has a lot of google hits", which isn't really an appropriate criteria for anything... Wickethewok 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My thought is more to DLand's comment. Danny Lilithborne 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you're going with vague assertion of popularity then? Wickethewok 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say "Let's improve the article", but it hasn't done that in eight months and I'm not in the position to do so. If it hasn't happened by now, I really don't have a reason to believe it ever will, so I'll change my vote to neutral. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe .RON   talk  00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it's been over half a year, and I see no sign that the article has been improved. It still completely lacks reliable secondary sources or other verifiable evidence of notability.  Standards have tightened as WP has become more frequently targetted by spammers, and what may have passed as a keep argument back in February does not necessarily stand up today.  Xtifr tälk 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article comes across as way to promotional, and as previously stated, hasn't been touched in a long time. The Kinslayer 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regretful neutral per nom. This and grow (game) have been very popular as logic games, one may even say influential, but unless reliable sources can be found we probably can't have a decent article. Here's one review from a professional but barely-known website. Somebody prove me wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Anomo 09:45, 29 October 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.