Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball Revamped

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retired username (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 8 November 2006 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. W.marsh 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Revamped

Not particularly notable flash game. Seems to fail WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB and is most likely original research as well. Wickethewok 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is rather popular at particularly well-known sites such as Newgrounds and has won awards from such corporation. Not to mention Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to provide access to the sum of human knowledge? Hmm?

After all, these are facts.

Heck, it even states it won awards from Newgrounds.


GaeMFreeK 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

  • Thats not a particularly notable award imo. I would postulate that hundreds of flash animations have won Newgrounds awards, and every one of those is not notable. Also, it still fails WP:V. Wickethewok 06:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been featured on TV and won several awards, not just on Newgrounds. Millions upon millions have played it...what do you mean it's not a notable Flash game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TastyLamp (talk • contribs)

  • Could you bring up some specific examples/citations? You really need to be more specific. The article says nothing regarding other awards, tv features, or what have you, so maybe you could help us out? Both you guys seem to be new here, so I suggest checking out WP:V and WP:RS for some important info regarding verifiability policy. If you are interested more in what the word "notability" specifically refers to, there is an essay here: WP:N. Wickethewok 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it has been featured on BBC World TV, [1]

  • One minute on TV is something I spose, but I don't see that qualifying as showing notability for a person, band, or anything else, so I don't see why it should be different for a website/game. Wickethewok 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Just look it up on Newsgrounds! Click John, (the guy who made it) to see all of the awards it has gotten. There's your proof. Flamedude

  • Those are Newgrounds awards, which seem to be given out daily. I don't think that qualifies as a notable award. Wickethewok 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RaceBandit: Newgrounds doesn't give "Game of the Month" daily, does it? And Ball Revamped 4 won that.

Wikipedia has an article on The Llama Song, why shouldn't Ball Revamped be recognized? -TastyLamp This template must be substituted.

  • This is John Cooney, Senior Developer of Armor Games and owner of jmtb02 Studios. It has been brought to my attention that this page may be deleted. I am not a normal wikipedia user, but I can confirm that from checking over this information recently, that all this information is factual and correct. The Ball Revamped series has had several awards and honors, and has been played nearly 20 million times. It will also be going into X-Box Development in a short while. While I am not quite sure why this article is flagged, it must be flagged for a reason that can be fixed to save this page. I use this page constantly for referring people to what my series is, and I think many have used this as a reference as well. -John Cooney, jmtb02.com.
  • Delete. While I might agree that the game is fairly notable, the article is entirely unencyclopedic and reads like an ad for the game - no wonder considering the creator of "Ball Revamped" has made several edits to it. If there is going to be an article on it, it should be no longer than 2-3 paragraphs. Also, this deletion-nomination has descended into complete chaos. Order, please!Mackan 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this thread is out of hand, and I would like the request that if anyone has an argument that they be reasonable and to keep with the organization rules specified by Wikipedia. As I have mentioned before, if anyone has any thing they want to do to make it appropriate, please do so. If it is too much like an ad, feel free to change aspects you find incorrect or biased. But I have trouble distinguishing the differences between this article and articles such as Heli_Attack, which has four articles surrounding it, or any given video game such as Gears_of_war. Any time you list any feature of a game, its going to sound like an ad. Jmtb02 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Actually, Heli Attack doesn't seem particularly notable--I've flagged it for proposed deletion. The problem is that it's very difficult for editors to find all of these little articles, much less fact-check them and review them for vandalism. The reason commercial games like Gears of War tend to warrant entries is that they usually have widespread cultural exposure. --Alan Au 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, this is Daperson here. this entry should not be removed because it is about a very wlel known game, admittedly the entry would be better if it was a larger one for jmtb02 and all of his games, but its definatly notable content matter, john cooney the author has been used by adobe as an example of a youngster using flash (ok so im a 13 year old flash designer, your point?), and why shouldnt there be an article about it? its not exactly doing much harm sat there on the site, and if only the members of jmtb02.com forums used it it would be quite sufficently large amount of usage. to quote the message above 'not a particularly noteable flash game', excuse me whoever wrote that, have you been on ANY flash gaming websites recently? just about all of them have a version of ball revamped or another of john's games on them,,here is a list (thwese were got in about 5 mintues from googling Ball Ravamped. www.ebaumsworld.com www.albinoblacksheep.com www.addictinggames.com www.smashingames.com www.gamesloth.com www.flashstuf.com www.channel4.com/entertainment/games www.rubytooth.com gprime.net www.ugotgames.com www.onemorelevel.com www.milkandcookies.com www.newgrounds.com there is even www.ball-revamped.com which wasnt made by the author of Br i dont believe on newgrounds the average score of the ball revamped series is 3.942/5, and has won the following awards: Daily Fifth: 1 Daily Fourth: 2 Daily Third: 1 Daily Second: 1 Daily First: 1 Over 10k views: 1 Over 50k views: 2 Over 100k views: 2 (that makes over 300,000 views on newgrounds ONLY, not counting the over websites) Front Page: 2 To my knoweldge the BR games have been played about 21 million times, and you call THAT a not notable flash game? kindly DEFINE noteable flash game will you? not to mention it is also about the author who is quite frankly an amazing guy! he ahs accumulated a huge thriving community of mainly programmers on his forums, and has inspired us all to start making games using flash (im only 13!), thanks to him i had the motivation to start making a multiplayer game, which has since placed me second in the UK IET Flipside Award for Innovation andEcxellence in Engineering and Technology! to remove this article about a person that has achieved so much, and inspired so many to do the same would be criminal at the best of times, this is a bloody encyclopedia, isnt the object of an encyclopedia to have information on practicially EVERYTHING notable, this isnt just a notable flash game, the author and his work is becoming LEGENDARY!

  • I am going to have to disagree on some of your points. A lot of this has to do with jmtb02.com and not Ball Revamped, so probably isn't a very good argument for this case. And Wikipedia, as we have seen already by the flagging, seems to follow strict guidelines for submission. Jmtb02 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dapers again, i agree, it would definatly be better if it was a whole jmtb02 wiki thing not jsut ball revamped, so maybe we should make a jmtb02 wiki article and lin kto this one? it would save time not to have to remake it all

  • That probably would be a good idea, Daperson - about making Jmtb02 himself a Wikipedia entry. But the matter at hand is the fact that Wikipedia is about to delete this article. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with it, and it has gotten many non-Newgrounds awards. I mean, just look at the Google results - 391,000 for the exact phrase. Not to mention the countless people who've played it and haven't even said anything. Ball Revamped is notable, and I think this request for deletion should be taken down. GaeMFreeK 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Once the game goes into Xbox development and gets more widespread circulation, it might have a better case for inclusion, but otherwise I'm inclined to side with the nominator that the game just doesn't have enough exposure to make it notable. Feel free to archive the content in User-space until then. Also, no, Wikipedia is not about the sum total of human knowledge, it's about the sum total of externally verifiable human knowledge of interest to a reasonably significant portion of the population. --Alan Au 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alan, maybe you could nominate this article too? Drakojan skies. Mackan 07:42, 6 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ball_Revamped&oldid=86513077"