Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of browser-based Flash games

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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of browser-based Flash games

Disputed nomination to be prod deleted, reason for which was "Aside from the tautology in the title (arent all Flash games browser-based?) I cannot see this list ever being remotely near comprehensive, or anything other than an arbitrary random sampling, and of course will always be open to abuse from spamming. The only linked games on the page are to what are basically marketing strategies, so currently fails WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY." Also, Category:Flash games and Category:Browser-based games serve the same function dont they? Iamaleopard (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the reason this entry was created was because it appeared that many Flash games would not be considered notable enough for their own entry. if you wish, we can change it to list of "Online Flash games". --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In response to the above, that's exactly the problem: Flash games are very rarely notable, and Wikipedia is NOT a web directory or list of external links. There are hundreds of thousands of Flash games and more being created literally every minute. Wikipedia just isn't the place to catalogue them all. For the few that are notable and have articles, there are several categories that cover them, making this doubly unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the nominator says, there are already categories which cover this topic, and this article appears to have been created to house content deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2, for instance). "List of X" articles aren't a license to ignore notability criteria. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content can be not notable enough for an article, and still be appropriate for inclusion in a suitable list or combination article.DGG (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, making it a list doesn't mean we can ignore policy. If the games are notable, they can be kept, but there is no notability here (asserted or otherwise). Justin ^chat 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your justifiable concerns. so one thing I would suggest is that maybe we could consider this article a stub, and perhaps give this article a little time and leeway to grow. By the way Flash trek 2 is extremely notable. i had an article which explained all this. basically, it allows players to interacts with other races, to buy and trade items, to buy ships, to make alliances, to colonize and develop planets, all in a browser-based game. Doesn't that sound a bit notable? I wasn't sure how to indicate though. So how about we all work together, and try to make the article more responsive to the many valid concerns which have been expressed here? i do greatly appreciate all the thoughts, input, and the understandable criticisms expressed here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have revised the article, to address some of the valid concerns which have been raised here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Trek 2 was specifically found to be non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2 (which you participated in). Claiming that it is "extremely notable" is hardly convincing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant notable enough for inclusion in a list. By the way, noone said that it was non-notable, they said you cannot claim notability without sources. i understand your rightful and justified concerns, but I do feel that this is a small but important difference. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence that these two games, or a list of games meeting the criteria are in any way notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why this article should be deleted it is suggeested that flash games are rarely notable, and that wikipedia could not possibly survive with a flash game list, while there is a online game list in this article. Even if this article is not added, then I suggest it be merged. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compulsions70 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.