Team Fortress Wiki:Archived discussions/Talk:Spycrebs

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Deletion

I don't believe this article is worth a page, it's barely noted anywhere, it has only <500 downloads based on the TF2 maps page, has nowhere else talking about it, and the page has barely any information to make it worth covering. The only coverage I could find is 1 YT video covering several fangames with ~13k views and 1 video of just gameplay with 26 (as of the time of writing). Comparing it to the 3 other fan games featured on the wiki: Gang Garrison 2 was voted to be the 9th best indie game of 2010 on indieDB as well as having its own wikipedia page. Fortress Forever has its own wikipedia page and even its on Steam page (Through Steam Greenlight). And Team Fortress Arcade has 12.8k downloads according to the first Google result.

Overall I think this game is not really fit for a page, as it has barely any information and has barely any notability whatsoever. While there aren't any official guidelines for fan games (yet), I do believe that it's common sense for a game to have to be notable in one way or another that's obvious from just googling.
GrampaSwood (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's really that obscure, then I agree; no need for its own article just because it appeared in an event. - BrazilianNut (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I know we don't quite have wikipedia's notability rules (because basically everything we do is from a single game), but this might be a place to apply them?

This definitely doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Darkid « Talk — Contribs » 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We do have a subset of guidelines in the works in regards to fan games which are yet to be passed. I also agree; the game's goal is very simple, thus there's very little information to be covered.

If we were to allow such games to get their own articles, then it could be argued that the fan game Sandvich Maker, which made an appearance on KritzKast back in 2016, also would merit an article. Even so, it would create the same issue; lack of notability and simply too little to write about.

The article technically does not violate the current policy, however articles have been deleted before simply for lacking in information or not being noteworthy enough. We have adopted Wikipedia's guidelines in the past, but not in regards to general notability, as far as I'm aware.