Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick rpg

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August &#9742; 15:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stick rpg
Tagged for speedy, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria, so I'm bringing it here. Personally, I vote delete as advertising. Joyous (talk) 04:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising for flash game with bugs. Martg76 04:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. advert. Nateji77 04:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. not worthy of an encyclopedia entry Malo 04:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, adv. DS1953 05:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For every hundred flash game articles we get, there's the 1% that's something like this.  Stick RPG (prolly should be moved to the proper capitalization) has had approximately 4 million plays between XGen and Newgrounds.  Almafeta
 * Weak keep but expand. Almafeta's right: as time-wasting buggy flash games go, this is actually a notable one. JDoorjam 15:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Almafeta- very widely-known flash game, often included in FHM Top 100 Games --Lawlore 17:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless author can expand on game details --trouble 22:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Somewhat strong keep. Notability can definitely be established; though it's a matter of personal preference whether you think it's notable or not. -Hmib 01:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or convert. The number and popularity of XGenStudios games makes them notable - maybe I just wasted my time editing it with the games I played more than once. A section covereing all of their games, may be more worthwhile than listing a single one 62.255.64.7 14:42, 14 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.