Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide


 * 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   Snowball keep. Community consensus is quite clear that this game and its related controversy meets notability standards. Rerunning the debate at a later point when it can be free of editorial scrying and recentism might be advisable, but for now at least, it stays, and the most productive move is to end the discussion so our editors can spend their energy more beneficially. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima talk 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide

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

This topic is verifiable, but not notable. It's just a trivial news item; you can't write much about it apart from the current two lines. Definitely not encyclopedic enough. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a trivial incident, or attempt to attract attention. Anyone could put together this kind of thing, and of course concerned groups would protest and get media coverage. Borock (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone could be a serial killer and get themselves another coverage for an article. Ease of doing something is not a deletion criteria.Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, lacks any lasting impact. Unless there is an appropriate larger topic or list it can be put in, of course. --erachima talk 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know?Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: the following list is unsigned so that anyone should feel free to maintain - not delete - it  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2776951/Muslim-Massacre-video-game-condemned-for-glamorising-slaughter-of-Arabs.html http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4730864.ece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054380/Outrage-Muslim-Massacre-game.html#addComment http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/muslim-massacre-computer-game-condemned-926085.html http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Ramadhan-Muslim-Youth-Foundation-Condemns-Racist-Muslim-Massacre-Game/Article/200809215097348 http://itn.co.uk/news/6b0ce250af766a1ab57017255ceb2f7e.html http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Muslim_Massacre_game_criticised&in_article_id=304451&in_page_id=34</li> <li>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1677450.ece</li> </ul></ul> and now picked up internationally (which of course means it's 'just trivial'): <ul><ul> <li>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420813,00.html</li> <li>http://www.haber7.com/haber/20080912/Musluman-katliami-oyunu-nefret-uyandirdi.php</li> <li>http://www.theasiantoday.com/article.aspx?articleId=1049</li> <li>http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24335375-5014117,00.html</li> <li>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/13/2363530.htm</li> <li>http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1189483</li> <li>http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2392470,00.html</li> <li>http://demorgen.be/dm/nl/990/Buitenland/article/detail/413528/2008/09/12/Moslimwereld-geschokt-over-game-Moslimbloedbad-.dhtml</li> <li>http://www.gandul.info/planeta-nebunilor/masacrul-musulmanilor-un-joc-ce-incita-la-uciderea-lui-osama-si-a-lui-allah.html?3938;3171345</li> <li>http://www.christnet.cz/magazin/zprava.asp?zprava=16424</li> <li>http://www.focus-news.net/?id=n1037608</li> <li>http://www.dag.nl/1099593/NIEUWS/Artikelpagina-Nieuws/Ophef-over-gratis-moslim-moordgame.htm</li> <li>http://www.islam.ru/world/2008-09-11/22687</li> </ul></ul>
 * keep There appears to be a fair bit of coverage.Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Seriously? This article was created a day before the AfD was opened. That is hardly appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Even bearing in mind WP:NOT, there are already multiple reliable news sources reporting on the item (reception/controversy), and it's being picked up by sites like Kotaku and Game Politics which indicates that more game sites will follow and provide gameplay/reception/development details. Ironically, I noticed this AFD just as I was working on a list of controversial games, this looks like another good candidate. It's disappointing that the article was put up for deletion without the creator being contacted first - sources are appearing literally now, instead of catching them and building an article we're wasting time talking about deleting it. If when all is said and done it is just controversy rather than any actual gameplay information, then it would be a merge candidate rather than deletion anyway, but there's no reason to even have that discussion now, details of this game are ending up on WP in one form or another. If the general media go to town with a particular game, then it's very unlikely that the gaming media will not explore it anyway. Someoneanother 19:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I get where you're coming from by calling this too trivial or transitory, but that's still an assumption with some evidence (the Google news link) against it. Since neither the situation or the article have had the chance to develop much, we cannot make an informed decision in the space of this AfD. Any that we would make would be inapplicable by the end of it. --Kiz o r  19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable for its name only, hence unworthy of an article. To keep one containing no information on the game itself is pure spam. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but how often do you make articles that you complete in only a few edits in one day? My best guess is "zero". On what grounds do you say it should be deleted after a single day with barely ANY time provided to let it grow? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I create articles with enough content to provide evidence of notability, on topics with clear merit. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that the basis for choosing deletion is that it's a stub, not that it has insufficient notability. It's not as if there is no information on the game. And are you implying that Super Columbine RPG! and V-Tech Massacre are notable for reasons other than the name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to apply other stuff exists here here? The key difference of course is that those two games recreate specific notable events. This article isn't even comparable, not that other articles are the yardstick for whether to delete something or not. I didn't vote delete because it's a stub, I voted delete because the article only exists because of it's name, it has established no notability except in the minds of those who know think we now need a Category:Massacre reenactment video games that generate controversy. Patently not worthy of an article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that they were considered notable because of what they covered. V-Tech was a Newgrounds flash game that got strong media attention. Hint: It wasn't because of its gameplay. Wanna guess why? Well, perhaps it's because of the name? None of these articles would be notable if it wasn't for the subjects they focus on, they're ALL notable because of the name. There's also a game putting the KKK in a positive light that's considered notable. And how can you vote delete after one day? The game is receiving extra media attention day after day after day, and there's no indication that it's any less notable than Super Columbine RPG! (which is notable because of its name). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there are several long articles about the game, one appearing on the Guardian's web site. Your first complaint was that there was no gameplay content, a shocker for an article that was made just yesterday. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can easily vote delete after a day, because 'omg its only been a day' is not a valid rationale in an Afd. Neither is it's in the newspapers. If the only argument you have is other stuff exists, that's pretty weak too. No gameplay reviews? Well delete it until there are, this isn't a holding pen for non-notable articles until they become worthy. If this is going to be a ground breaking game for years to come, then where's the harm in waiting until a proper notable article can be written? I'll tell you what, the loss of the potential to use wikipedia as a vehicle for self promotion. As the sources point out, nobody in the news sources you are so confident establish notability for this game, gave a crap about the game when it was released, it was only until the 9/11 anniversary it became notable as, and I quote, a "tedious and desperate to drum-up-controversy [game]" - techradar.com. As far as newsworthy video games, its as lame as they come. And lastly to humour the other stuff argument, what notable event such as Columbine is this game re-enacting anyway? I see no wtc tower in the screenshots. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, lay off the article author for not describing the game contents - spam is a serious charge. You know we're not required to get things right the first time. If you want game contents, let me try. --Kiz o r  21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the notability guidelines, then the deletion criteria. The only outcome of keeping a non-notable article about a game evidently created to court attention would be to violate the spam policy. If that turns into an allegation against the creator of this article, so be it, he has the opportunity to comply with the policies, as do you. I don't need clearance from you as to whether to make that point or not in an Afd, when it clearly has merit, judged on the state of the article as found. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim the right to make allegations of spamming against other editors in order to uphold the rules. Noted. --Kiz o r  21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not an advertisement and the external links appear to be relivant. Quite hard to argue that it qualifies as spam. Accuseing longstanding wikipedians of spaming wikipedia does however run into issues with WP:AGF.Geni 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam does not necessarily take the form of blatant commercialism. When the ghits in google news die down, which they will and quickly, then wikipedia will be right here preserving this historic game's bio for all time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam isn't someone making an article you disagree with. The only way this article is spam is if the article exists to advertise it. The article exists because it received notable controversy in the media. That much is obvious. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a completely simplistic and quite naive interpretation of the principle of the no self promotion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already notable. No sane person would ever assert that V-Tech Massacre was notable for its gameplay, it was a free-to-download flash game on Newgrounds. The one and only reason it's notable is the subject. Even E.T. is notable mostly because of it being one of the contributing factors to the video game crash of 1983. There ARE games that are notable without having their gameplay be notable, and it's already been established that reliable sources have covered the controversy of this game. And an article being nominated after one day is an excellent reason to speedy keep - an incomplete article is a reason to expand. NOT delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not repeating the same replies I have already made, you are merely restating the same invalid arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about its name, you are utterly wrong. Also on memorability, I remember the game 'Pakibash', which caused similar controversy back in the 90s, due to its media coverage at the time.  But you know so much better, don't you, wise one? 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — (edit conflict) there is substantial coverage here, not to mention the verifiable (within WPVG, that is) Kotaku source. Combine that with controversy and the fact this article was started one day before 9/11 gives it a very strong case for notability. If it is unencyclopedic, it can be rewritten and cleaned up. MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:VG: Kotaku:A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced.. So, to establish notability for the game as a game, as opposed to notability in the news, it appears the reputation of their contributor Michael McWhertor is key. I am presuming that notability as a groundbreaking piece of amateur video game technology, is not discussed in the Telegraph, techrader or UPI sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It need not be a "groundbreaking piece of technology" to gain notability as a game. Bubble Bath Babes wasn't very groundbreaking as a video game, but gained notability because of its pornography — the same with other similar ones like Custer's Revenge and Beat 'em and Eat 'em. They all sparked controversy, especially in the American media. The same applies here, especially with a name such as "Muslim Massacre." MuZemike (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For a start, this is just another other stuff exists argument. It is well recognised that nothing could ever get deleted if that was a policy. I have no clue what those games have sourced to establish their notability as part of a wider controversy, but out of 3 articles, one doesn't even exist, and one is tagged for need sources and other multiple issues, the other, despite being such a notable game for 20 years, still only has 6 references, only one of which appears to be an analysis of its impact in that topic in a wider context. It is also not hard to argue that attempts to push the decency laws in 80s is quite different from this game. What important impact is this game having on the general theme of muslim discrimination, or on law, right now?. I'll tell you what, nothing. And 'but, wait and see' is another invalid argument. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The news sources presented cut it for me, I don't think this is just a "trivial news item" as the nominator suggests. User:Krator (t c) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Normally I'd say delete, because as N says, Wikipedia does not speculate on how many sources COULD be found or become available. However, there are also a decent amount of sources already and at the very least it should be merged into a controversial games category or something similar. --Banime (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the claim to notability is to be controversy (which some of the sources actualy mock as a false controversy), then I would also point out the real world 'objectors' noted in the article giving the controversy legitimacy, are not even notable enough to warrant an article themselves. Planting the article squarely into the not news category. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm roughly 110% sure "being notable enough to have an article" and "being reliable" are two completely different things entirely. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right MickMacNee. But again since I see many sources already I still have to maintain my weak keep.  Yeah it seems like a slightly obscure game, but the fact that so many news sources are talking about it does make it notable I believe.--Banime (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Muslim Council of Britain, who made a statement reported in the third day of news (see the ABC News link), are very notable and have a Wikipedia page 79.64.63.145 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Verifiable and notable 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And? What are you proving with these sources? That if someone makes a cynical attempt to grab headlines and it works, then they deserve a wikipedia article for time immemorial? The game is crap, the press coverage is temporary. The article is unwarranted. It makes the whole project look ridiculous, as it shows just how easy it is for the notability principle of the encyclopoedia to be misunderstood/missapplied, and frankly abused for the purpose of amateur game developers to get free self promotion of the level they frankly wouldn't get anywhere else in their lives if this game was the sum contribution of their life to the world. The game author has no article, the organisations claiming to be offended have no article, yet through this article describing a non-notable game, they both get one. This is a perfect example of the trend of turning wikipedia into a steaming pile of tabloid junk, because people honeslty do not understand the basic principle of the essay WP:NOTNEWS, and wrongly focus on the 'trivial' coverage aspect of the policy WP:NOT: our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. If people are honestly saying that in years or even months time that coverage of the Muslim Massacre game controversy will extend beyond these current event news articles (which belong on Wikinews) into proper documented analysis of it in the wider context of another topic, muslim persecution in video games? / list of amatuer game developers seeking attention?, then they are seriously wrong in their perception of what wikipedia actualy is. It's frankly just part of the general dumbing down trend of the practice of google news source counting in an Afd, in place of any serious intellectual argument. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again ease with which something can be done is not deletion criteria and we have articles on some exteamly poor computer games such as Superman 64.Geni 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is hardly my main point. And why are other stuff exists defences becoming the only running theme here? That is a sure fire sign that nobody can actually defend this in context of the purpose of wikipedia or rigorous application of its policies. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy based defence? There are enough reliable sources about the subject to write a NPOV article without resorting to original research.Geni 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you just ignore the fact all you are doing is turning wikipedia into a newspaper. But I'm getting the impression that you seriously wouldn't have a problem if we did that and shut wikinews down. NPOV and OR are quite irrelevant as they only apply once you have justified the content belongs here, and as such, along with the comments about effort to make the game and other stuff exists arguments, are simply a diversion from the main issue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So there should be no coverage of the US 2008 election because the media coverage is 'temporary'? You don't seem to know how the media work. You also don't know what 'tabloid' means.  As above, yes, I'm claiming (based on example) precisely that this game might well be notable even in years to come. You're just thowing words like 'spam', 'temporary' and 'trivial' around because you've taken offence. 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per above. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I likewise heard about the game in my local newspaper's article about it. While Mick's hatred for the subject is palpable - and increasingly uncivil; there is no need to link believing this subject meets WP:V/WP:N with a desire to shut Wikinews down - one need go no further for an applicable policy than WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."  These exist.  Or WP:N: "f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic."  This is apparent.  "The key difference of course is that those two games recreate specific notable events."  Yes, and so what - what about recreating a specific event makes a tie-in article viable, where not doing so does not?  I see nothing in either policy or guideline on that issue, never mind on disqualifying a subject from an article because "it is crap" or because it is offensive to an ethnic or religious group.    RGTraynor  14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent my views, I do not oppose this article because I find it offensive. What I find offensive is statements like " I likewise heard about the game in my local newspaper's article about it" leading to junk articles like this one, due to a complete misconception of what wikipedia is. This game is not worthy of an article right now, and likely never will be. It barely warrants an article titled Muslim Massacre video game controversy, which, by policy acording to the sources, it should currently be named. To answer the other stuff exists crowd, who seem insistent this is a valid arguement, if you actually look at the content of video game controversy, you would see that this article based on the sources, barely warrants one or two lines in there compared to other 'controversial games', let alone its own article masquerading as being about the game and not the press attention. Also, an attempt to make a list of controversial video games based on controversy reflected in 'media sources' has been merged. I suggest if the people voting based on notability here realy know what they are arguing for, then I suggest they all try to go and get that list resurrected and fleshed out, rather than making their general points in here. The 'examples' of controversial games above (all released titles), are currently hiding in Video games notable for negative reception, in an article that is actually supposed to be about games that got bad reviews for the gameplay. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You will, I hope, forgive me for the characterization when I read lines like "junk articles like this one," "This game is not worthy of an article right now, and likely never will be," "unworthy of an article," "I create articles ... on topics with clear merit," "[p]atently not worthy of an article," "its as lame as they come," "planting the article squarely into the not news category" ... I strongly recommend you dial the venom down a good bit if the impression you want people to take from your remarks is a cool, dispassionate policy debate.   RGTraynor  15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So your argument appears to biold down to other stuff doesn't exist.Geni 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just pointing out the flaws in your other stuff arguments. If you point me to a policy that states media controversy guarantees the subject of any news subject gets automatic rights to an article, such that you wouldn't have to use such flawed positions to justify turning wikipedia into what it is not, then I'm all ears.MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Media controversy is one of the things that definitively establishes notability, just as much as media reception/acknowledgment does. It's common sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. I can open tomorrows newspaper and find 50 "controversial" subjects. You frankly do not know what an encyclopoedia is, that is the be all and end all of the issue. I am sad that you don't even understand this basic concept, and even more sad that you honestly seem to need a specific policy regarding video games to be written for you before you will even begin to understand it. But if you think you are right, which you sadly do, then I look forward to you resurrecting the CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO GAMES list that I linked to above. Somehow, I doubt you will, because I think you and I know, in the grand scheme of things, you are defending a steaming pile of shite of an article that does not belong here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Err. WP:CIVIL, please.  It isn't merely that the consensus is running heavily to keep, and it isn't that we don't understand: we just don't agree with you.    RGTraynor  00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, who ever said consensus was right? There is an essay here somewhere that says if a hundred people talk absolute shite and one doesn't, then per policy, it's still shite. Well, that's what is happening here, although its only about 5 users who are peddling the shite. I can't stop you all if you think wikipedia is Google news, but I will try. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you would have a hard time decideing to what level of controversy would be required for something to be included on the list. For much the same reason List of dictatorships doesn't exist any more.Geni 00:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So let's just ignore it and let little bits of crap exist, because you can't get consensus for a proper list to exist. I think this fits your tactic perfectly. Junk additions, little by little, chipping away at the notability guideline until it means nothing at all, bar "Google news rules". 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't get consensus that List of dictatorships should exist but we have an article on Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. Heh Junk additions, little by little, chipping away at the notability guideline until it means nothing at all, bar "Roman Antiquities rules".Geni 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A few observations:
 * Something notable for its name is still notable. (Without saying whether that is the case here or not.)
 * An AFD started one day after article creation is not per se a bad thing. In this case, the AFD was the wrong decision, but not because of the timing. Had this truly been not notable, the AFD would have been completely warranted.
 * Notability is not temporary. Yes, media coverage will eventually blow over, but the source material will still be there a year from now.
 * We are not providing notoriety to this game or the creator. The media may have done that, but we are summarizing that coverage. That is the job of an encyclopedia.
 *  Pagra shtak  20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note — Dispute resolution via third opinion, los!!!! MuZemike (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When the 'coverage' amounts to a couple of days worth of news, you FAIL not news. I'm not going to repeat the points made above, but that is the be all and end all of the issue. Granted you might not care, but I doubt you will be here in 2 years time still arguing that this article is notable, despite there having been not a single source added since today. If you think controversial names are notable, then god help us. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to step back and take a deep breath, MickMacNee. There are plenty of reliable sources, and there's no expiration date on notability, so it doesn't matter if it's not notable in the present day two years from now. What I have to wonder is why this is less notable than Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. You say it's notable for its name, but if Columbine Massacre were something else, would it be notable? Not in the slightest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to take a step back, you need to take a critical look at the difference between these two games, one an official title about a controversial incident, the other an amateur pile of crap about a rather obvious topic designed to casue 'media hype' and the subsequent defence as such in this Afd as if this was a seminal piece of work. Please, just try to add this as a paragraph in video game controversy, be a man about it, put your "notability" where your mouth is, rather than coming up with the same tiresome other stuff exists arguments, which don't apply as you haven't even been smart enough to compare like for like. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that because the creator wanted to create controversy, it can't be notable. If that were true, even being covered by the biggest news media wouldn't be enough. No matter what the intentions are for WHY the game exists, even if it's JUST to get an article on Wikipedia, that's not a reason to say it's not notable. You say it's only notable because of its name, and Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is only notable because of its name. V-Tech Massacre was a Newgrounds flash game made by an amateur developer. Are you implying that the latter was created for reasons other than to create controversy? And for future reference, please don't vandalize the article in order to limit its content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the rest, please just educate yourself as to what vandalism is, and don't wrongly accuse people of doing it just because they are editing your pet article in a way you don't like. Once you grasp the basics, the finer nuances of policy come naturally, such as 'other stuff exits' and 'self promotion' and 'undue weight' and 'article naming' and 'logical fallacies' etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please act like an adult if you want to participate in this discussion? Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking you to understand the most basic of policies like vandalism is extremely adult. If I wanted to be childish I would plead for an admin to look into your blatant misapplication of the policy, despite being informed. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And that administrator would notice that you're actively trying to reduce the content of the article. And that no amount of news coverage seems to be acceptable to assert notability for you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that that was reducing content? Seriously, can your reasoning get any worse here? The empty (bar the obvious) infobox was longer than the article. I know they didn't specify this kind of thing in the manual of style, because frankly, it is so blindingly obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could an administrator please deal with MickMacNee? He's basically been attacking anyone who votes keep or disagrees with him in the slightest, and has resorted to attacking the page by removing the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agh, MickMacNee is one of the most uncooperative editors I've ever seen. I suggest everyone just not fuel his trolling, since all he seems to do is respond by calling everyone's differing opinions dumb (since apparently, he's the last word in everything). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that co-operation is accepting that this as a worthy article based on numerous flawed and uneducated arguments then by all means consider me highly uncooperative. I will not ever accept that an empty infobox is a valid addition to a 2 paragraph stub. Such nonsense should be stamped out immediately. MickMacNee (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I guess the fact that all video game articles are encouraged to have an infobox is irrelevant because you magicked it away. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly not see how wrong you are? Do you even know what a style guide is or when it applies? Do you not have the first clue about what an infobox is actualy for and when it should be used? No, you do not. And your childish responses only prove that. MickMacNee (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and . No news since the first day? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Truly an epic event. Seriously, take a look at what you are trying to prove here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability of an article? Wow, what a monster I am. I bet there are even more monsters, since I'm guessing a lot of people actively try to assert an article's notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that a not news argument is negated by an extra day of coverage. To justify having an article for ever? Seriously, look at what you are trying to argue here, I seriously don't think you have ever done that yet. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, how about the fact that it's consistently gaining new coverage from several notable news sources? If it was only gaining one news source per day, you'd have a point, but it's still fresh in the news. Super Columbine Massacre RPG! and V-Tech Rampage had tons of coverage, were controversial because of their subjects, and are amateur games made by one person (the former made in RPG Maker, and the latter in Adobe). And pray tell, do you mean the subject, or why it's notable? Because if it's the latter, it explains your fervor against the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and the fact that he's just trying to piss people off doesn't equal "it can't become notable". If it's the latter, news coverage is an adequate source for any article. How about you explain what you need to be convinced that it's notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about you explain why you are making repeated accusations against my motives. I have made it perfectly clear what my opposition to this article is, if you can't counter that, that's fine, but if you want to start making other accusations against me as you have done already, you had damn well better back them up. As for news coverage and what constitues proper notability, I'm done trying to get it through to you, you obviously won't get it in a million years, even if you you were spoon fed the policy with prompt cards and pictures. Sadly, such simplistic interpretations by people like you look to be the death of what is supposed to be an encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me one reason why PC World, The Guardian, Game Politics, Arab News, Fox News, The Independent, and other reliable sources of information are not reliable enough to assert notability? What, exactly, does this fail? What notability does it fail in? "im not going to deal with u" is usually a sign that you HAVE no example of why it fails notability. It's been covered in Russian media, American media, Australian media, UK media, Italian media, French media, German media, Belgian media, Romanian media, Bulgarian media, Norwegian media, and more. I am at a loss of how this fails any notability standard, and you seem to be too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What not news actually says about events is that "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This is not an announcement (despite your lie that this is self-promotion of an announcement), it is not sport-related and it is not (despite your lie) tabloid journalism. Everything else there is about a person. No one has made an article (to the best of my knowledge) about the game's author.  The game has now gathered three days worth of coverage in non-tabloid sources.  It's time for you to back down. 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. XF Law (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Clearly notable Madlobster (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2008 (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.