Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuper Tario Tros.


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tuper Tario Tros.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This particular flash game does not appear to be notable. It had a bunch of reviews on a bunch of websites a few years ago but nothing has come of it since, suggesting it was only a flash in the pan. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources includes significant coverage ranging over almost two years, proving it's not a "flash in the pan" thing. I firmly believe the references in the article, which are from common reliable, independant sources, clearly establish notability of the game, and I am frankly quite surprised at Ryulong's insistence in seeing this deleted. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I don't think this 5 year old flash game really meets the notability requirements. Why does it matter that I went to AFD after you de-prodded it?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage is sufficient to meet basic notability requirements. Notability is not temporary so the lack of more recent coverage is irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It has good enough sources, it just needs better inline cites.  Konveyor   Belt  17:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The game has dedicated coverage from multiple reliable and respected sources: . (For VG source reliability, see WP:VG/RS.) Hey, do I care about it? No. But others did enough to write about it, and that's what matters here. Re: "flash in the pan", see "notability is not temporary". Open and shut case. czar  ♔  20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but is this coverage "significant"?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles are entirely about the game, I'm not sure how this can be considered anything but significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions in relations to the developper's other game). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - Passes GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason to delete when there is this much coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Jimqode (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Salv and Czar. It's not the type of thing I personally find appealing, when flash games rip off established popular IPs, but it received enough coverage. (And if we followed the rationale of this poorly formulated nomination, we'd be required to delete any game that doesn't get remade/rereleased/ported every couple of years, since that's really the only way games keep receiving consistent coverage post-release...) Sergecross73   msg me   20:33, 29 May 2014 (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.