Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. --jonny-m t 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles

prod removed with no reason given. game with no claim to notability, lacks references Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ — Something tells me there should be something out there to establish notability for this article, but I can't find it. There is also nothing here besides WP:GAMEGUIDE information. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Keep — there has to be something out there establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i say let it stay " game with no claim to notability" the game was a Finalists in the Independent Games Festival Mobile for Audio Achievement: http://www.igfmobile.com/02finalists.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andri12 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article needs ALOT of work but it is notable none-the-less. Gears of War 2 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is only one of the two commercial GP2X games and therefor important for the independent game scene. The Dreamcast port is the best indie Dreamcast release so far and was a finalist of the Independent Game Festival: http://www.igfmobile.com/02finalists.html - so keep. 91.89.109.219 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the game: I have edited the article with links to external sources including the nomination as an Independent Games Festival and an interview from a notable website, and the presence of Yuan Works in the Game Developer's Conference. --YuanHao (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As shown with other recent deletions like Feet of Fury, Inhabitants and the GOAT Store, independent game development that is not released to large sales and critical acclaim does not apparently meet the criteria to be notable in and of itself. Finding a few articles without finding a lot of information is not enough to make a game notable. Information on this game is less than the others that were deemed 'Not Notable' already. Game is important to the GP2X independent development scene, but when an independent scene is so small as to not get recognized on most of the notable sites, it might as well be deleted. If anyone wants to find the history of these games, Wikipedia should not be the place for it. D3l8 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is more notable than those D3l8 cites. Just because some pages on independent games were deleted doesn't mean that all pages on independent games should be deleted. This game has won awards, whereas the games cited had no claim to notability. lk (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this has sufficient notability based upon the sources. Not to go WP:WAX, but other independently developed games such as Uplink (video game) are notable, while initially not having been released into the mainstream, nor leading to spectacular sales. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game page reads like an advertisement to the game and does not cite any information about the game that makes it notable. Unless the article is rewritten so that it does not read like a manual or advertisement, I see no reason to keep it. Also, just because it was entered into competition does not necessarily make it a notable game. Other winners of that competition are not listed, so it should depend on the notability of the game itself to save the entry, and with almost every link being a link to the game or the programmers site, I see this as an advertisement, not a notable game.63.84.191.66 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that notability has been established in this case, a pity since it looks interesting. Listed in the article is an interview, which is useful for development but not for reception (which is the part where notability gets demonstrated), there's a short piece about the dreamcast release here, but what is needed is a couple of full-size reviews from reliable sources. Being nominated for an IGF award is no basis for an article - "it was the running for an IGF award" so? Where's the reception information coming from? Nah, no prejudice against restoring the article if reviews show up in the future, but trying to build a broad and neutral article out of dribs and drabs doesn't work, I've tried. Someone another 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This is in reply to the above reply to my first statement -- All pages on independent games shouldn't be deleted, however there has been nothing shown that establishes the GP2X independent development scene as a notable one. The Independent_Games_Festival page does not list this game or any other runners up. As for the reply from lk, I believe the deleted games that I listed were entrants of other contests and also an important part of the Dreamcast independent development scene, but exactly like this article those titles did not have any notable reliable sources to establish the reason for their notability. D3l8 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck through your second 'delete', we only need to make one suggestion to keep or delete. Someone another 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem. Just couldn't reply above, and didn't know if it was better to "comment" randomly before, or create another Delete.D3l8 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 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.