Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Smash Flash 2


 * 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. no evidence of notability or RS coverage. Sole keep did not address that issue TravellingCari  04:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Flash 2

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

Contested PROD. No verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability for an upcoming fanmade flash game. In addition, this article fails WP:NOT in many areas, including crystalballery, web hosting, game guide information, and very likely conflict of interest and spamming. Was there anything I didn't mention? MuZemike ( talk ) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder. No reliable sources, no real claim of notability. gnfnrf (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This wouldn't be notable in the least even if it were released, and according to the article it's still months off. Could have been speedied as A7/nn-web content. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought contested prods had to go through AfD. MuZemike  ( talk ) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason either in policy or common sense that would make a failed PROd automatically exempt from all future speedies. This seems to me to be speedy-bait both because it fails to assert notability and because the original version (which if anything is more notable than this due to at least having been released) has been AfDed and speedied numerpous times and is now protected. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see that the first installment was salted. Anyways, now that the discussion is here, attempts to recreate the exact same content, provided the consensus is to delete, would be G4'd. Thus, the AfD was going to happen sooner or later (better now IMO). MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The original game has been shown to be non-notable; unless this incomplete, unreleased sequel somehow got coverage on G4, Electronic Gaming Monthly or some other outlet that fits our definition of a reliable source, it also appears to fail the notability guideline. Considering how many times the article for the original was re-created, I'd also suggest salting this space to prevent future recreations. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertation of notability, no referencing so its probably all original research, regardless of the editor's good intentions. Unless some sort of evidence of notability from reliable, secondary sources can be produced, deletion is prudent. Salting may be a good idea, considering the recreation of the first game's article. -- Sabre (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as origanal contestor of the PROD Adam Hillman (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any actual policy or reason, or is this just "Keep 'cuz I said so" ? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See the reason(s) Talk:Super Smash Flash 2. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject lacks notability. If this article is kept, then it should be made into an article for both games.  However, I think it requires a deletion.  --  Super Shy Guy Bros.   Not shy?  23:36, 3 October 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.