Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Element TD (2nd nomination)

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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY, what was good enough for 2011 is still good enough, unless there's a very specific guideline change that negates previous arguments. -Fangz (talk)
  • Also I found this academic article discussing the game. [1] and this Masters Thesis [2] -Fangz (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Fangz is right; getting discussed by academics and featuring so heavily (extended text about the game, and a statement that it was one of two games that inspired the investigation) in an MSc elevates it beyond run-of-the-mill game, and gives notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I was saying that the 2011 discussion was not up to 2024 standards, not that the article's notability suddenly "disappeared".

  To call the new sources trivial mentions is putting it lightly, I simply don't agree it stacks up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 19 October 2024 (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.