Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Lava (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   keep. This is a semi-close call. However, after pondering over the different opinions raised here, I think that the people who expressed an opinion to keep expressed stronger arguments than those to delete. ( X! ·  talk )  · @127  · 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot Lava (game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS There's only one reference from a Simpson's trivia page on TV.com. - tbone (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability not established. Do we really need an article on this? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and figure out appropriate title and alternative names. This is a notable and common children's game. Whether it is called Hot lava I have no idea outside the Simpsons I have no idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not even a game, really. Extremely unlikely any substantial coverage in reliable sources exists. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Too useful to delete, although it still needs sources.  I found this page while trying to figure out what "the floor is lava" meant, and this is a decent explanation for the perplexed.  --Tfkw (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The issue is supposed to be whether notability could be established. Less than two minutes with Google makes it clear that it could be.  --RBarryYoung (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (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.