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, seeing as how it's now sourced. Wizardman 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources. This is also overcategorization, since this type of gameplay would fit neatly into the "adventure game" genre. It's not much different from some parts of Space Quest 4. When this article is deleted, I might suggest a redirect from this page, and a short section on flash games in the adventure game category. Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although sourcing could be a problem. These generally have much more in common with puzzle games like Myst and the unfortunately deleted Hapland than "adventure" games. They weren't common or popular until 2004 or so, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used this page just the other day when a colleague was telling me how good this type of game was. I had never heard of this genre before and so went to Wikipedia for enlightenment. Wikipedia is intended to be a good general reference in exactly this way. The article just needs work - see WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden Knowitall (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible merge and redirect to Adventure game This genre needs to be the subject within reliable sources if it's to pass WP:N, I had a look the other day and came up with nothing acceptable, I was going to AFD or suggest merge of this article myself. It could well be possible to merge it into either Video puzzle game or Adventure game by cobbling something together from the handful of reliable sources about the games themselves (see MOTAS, which has a couple of example references). I'll keep looking for sources, but nothing that would suggest an entire article is needed has come up. Someone another (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Someone another. Among the 200k Google hits, there must be some reliable sources to write a good paragraph with. Not an article, though. User:Krator (tc) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete / redirect - This is a young, non-notable genre that probably fits as an adventure game. It's similar to maniac mansion or day of the tentacle in that you click around to solve situational problems. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Google searches for "'escape the room genre'" and "'escape the room game'" bring up quite a few hits. I'm not sure which browser/flash gaming sites are considered "reliable". Maybe the article can be salvaged at a future date when the genre becomes more notable. SharkD (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've given this another look. Still find a general failure to establish notability. That said, maybe a small writeup on flash games could be mentioned in the Adventure Game article. Lots of games involve clicking around, picking up items, and so on. I imagine it's easy to do a point-and-click adventure game in shockwave. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a much needed subject on Wikipedia, and if we have an article for almost every game type, why shouldn't we have this? --<font=Courier New> ~ Ryan57 ~ || Contribs 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't the subject of multiple reliable sources which is needed to needed to pass notability and to provide details for someone to actually write an article and there's an ideal merge candidate. Bear in mind we have so many genre, gameplay and other video-game related articles because they've not been filed into any kind of order. They're inconsistent, contradictory and nobody is overly thrilled about trying to hammer them into something usable. Also bear in mind that by merging we aren't losing the subject at all, it's dealt with in an appropriate amount of text in the appropriate place and should enough information become available it can easily be popped back out again. Someone another (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2007 (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.