The Deletion page contains video game articles and related miscellany currently listed for deletion. Articles for deletion can be found at Today's Deletion Log. This page only transcludes discussions; to nominate a new article for deletion please see the articles for deletion page. To list deletion debates on this page, transclude the discussion here by inserting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME}} under the appropriate day. Add {{subst:VG deletion}} to the debate when listing it here. New entries should be placed at the top of the list, and are sorted by day. For closed debates, please use {{afdl|article||open date YYYY-MM-DD|close date YYYY-MM-DD|result}} to list debates on this page. If the article has been nominated for deletion before, please use {{afdl|article|article's AfD page|open date (YYYY-MM-DD)|close date (YYYY-MM-DD)|result}} instead. Miscellany nominated for deletion follow the same pattern, but with mfdl instead of afdl. | Contents - 1 December 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 2 December 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 3 December 19 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 4 December 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 5 December 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 6 December 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 7 December 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 8 December 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 9 December 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)
- 10 Closed
| | | - Wild Pockets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Wild Pockets" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Topic is only supported by press releases, or by sources that mention Sim Ops but not Wild Pockets (note I have already removed a business week reference, and another to a wordpress blog) Therefore this software does not meet the general notability requirements. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This entire article is straight up a list of who's-in-what-games, by each game. There's no way to cut it other than this is game guide material as we wouldn't do this for weapon lists or other items related to a game series, and as a result serves no real purpose to inform the reader of, well, anything at all to be honest other than, well... just who appeared in which title. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merge whatever possible to Lego Star Wars or delete. This is essentially just a list of characters, which is usable for game guides only. JIP | Talk 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merge as the simple default solution to this kind of material. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok w/ Delete or Merge - I did some maintenance to this article because it looked downright awful, but truthfully I can't deny it falls under WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Second: I just created an article for the video games themselves - Lego Star Wars (video game series) - the character list should be merged there, perhaps in a "playable characters" section, but not to the main Lego Star Wars article. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- War of Legends (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "War of Legends" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Contested PROD nominated by User:Tim Song, who found nothing to support its notability. While I don't doubt the creator's intentions, it's got no secondary sources, and probably isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as original prodder. WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Per my prod rationale. Tim Song (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jagex, their other offerings are notable and this may become so in future. *sigh* I notice that the first edit included a link to 'the first fansite' for this new game that nobody knows anything about, the amount of fansite spamming on Jagex related pages is getting ridiculous. Someoneanother 23:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- List of Nitrome Limited skins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "List of Nitrome Limited skins" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This was PRODded as "utterly, boringly non-notable", and I have to say I agree; however the author wrote on the talk page "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted because its "boring"." He didn't remove the PROD, but I'm afraid, in the spirit of WP:PROD and WP:BITE, that has to be taken as a dePROD. No, the article shouldn't be deleted because it is boring, but because the subject is not notable - there is no evidence of independent comment on these skins - and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete -- I had seconded the PROD, and I don't see a reason to think the original proposer necessarily meant that this article was both boring and non-notable, rather than simply being non-notable in a boring way, which I think it is. Some articles are flagrantly, outrageously non-notable. That aside, while Nitrome itself seems notable I have not been able to find that the list of its skins is; and while it may be useful to some people to collect this information here, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jake Kaufman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Jake Kaufman" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Notability not established, no sources. The only third party source I could find [1] is a blog. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 01:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. (the external links are mostly blogs, I think) Aditya Ex Machina 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some sources-
- [2] - an originalsoundversion.com interview with him
- [3] - a Gamasutra interview with someone else about something he worked on, he's referenced in it.
- [4] - google cache of a music4games (site is currently down) piece discussing how he's working on Contra 4, and refering to a magazine article in Nintendo Power that also mentions him.
- He's also pretty big around OverClocked ReMix, so there's a bunch of refs that could be pulled from there.
- In the end, though, the article does establish notability in that he was the composer for the big-name video games Red Faction: Guerrilla and Contra 4, among many others. I'll admit the article is in bad shape, but if it looks like this AfD is heading away from deletion, then I'll work on it. Don't feel like wasting my time on it though, if it's all going to get burned. --PresN 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the article does too assert notability. Composed for big-name games and such. Voretus (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --PresN 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and add MX tags - While the format for the article is wrong, there are enough references between there and here to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Telepath RPG Chapter One (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Telepath RPG Chapter One" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
These articles are about a videogame series that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. In addition, they are poorly sourced and written primarily in an in-universe style. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons: - Telepath RPG Chapter 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable web game(s) and an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a game guide. I42 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find a single independent reliable source. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete maybe even speedy. Wiki is not a game guide. DRosin (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blockland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Blockland" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Non-notable software product. All the "references" provided are either forums or download sites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - I have added multiple references which prove the software's notability. Ephialtes42 (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Great amount of references for an article like this, and it has been featured on Shack News and The Screen Savers. Jeremjay24 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep sourcing appears to meet GNG per last AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think the Globe and Mail article establishes some notability. I do however thing the article needs help. Most of the editors are users of the game, and are single purpose accounts. This often makes for an article lacking neutrality.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This should be snowballed. Jeremjay24 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources, especially Globe and Mail article, establish notability for Blockland. Also a comment: as Ephialtes is a Blockland scripter, he is a clear COI/SPA. Specs112 (Talk!) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the active editors of that article are SPAs. I had a {{COI}} tag on for a while, and the situation hasn't improved I'm afraid.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Promethus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Promethus" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
No indication that this game is notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete. I like when the #1 Google hit on "Promethus" PSP is "Promethus: Worst game ever candidate?" That said, I don't see much to indicate that this is notable other than some chatter on video game forums. Nothing in what I would consider a reliable source. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete will be notable if and when it gets released as an actual disc, but at the moment it's just an in-progress demo... and given that it's about as popular as brussels sprouts in vomit sauce, that might be as far as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack: The Video Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack: The Video Game" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
My prod on this article was rejected, but I stand by my original opinion, which was as follows: An (admitted) quick google seach shows me nothing that indicates notability for this game. The article itself states that little about it is known except it is planned to be released in 2010. I feel this is well in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) -
-
- It would be nice if editors used the main shortcut. Thank you.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? If there even is such a thing as a main shortcut, which I really didn't know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to [5]], CRYSTAL is used much more often than CRYSTALBALL. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- BoycottAdvance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "BoycottAdvance" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - List of projects in development hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "List of projects in development hell" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
- This list is entirely subjective. It will always violate neutral point-of-view requirements.
- The list doesn't even specify clear inclusion criteria ("lengthy", "usually", "fairly" are ambiguous), but even if it did, the criteria themselves would be an NPOV issue.
- Making the determination of "Project X is in development hell" ourselves will always be a POV judgment.
- As it is, I also think this list suffers from verification, original research, and citation problems.
- While there are some sources given, few to none justify the claims of "development hell", and several are broken links.
- There is no question that various people might state various things are "in development hell". I don't see how we can pull together reliable sources to create a NPOV list.
- Some notes on the scope of this nomination:
- I'm not saying we should delete the article on development hell.
- I'm not saying we cannot mention "development hell" anywhere.
- If a work (book, etc.) on development hell projects is created, and that work becomes notable, that work can have articles/lists. If multiple such works exist, we might have a list of works on the topic of development hell.
- This list was sort-of deleted once before:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of development hell projects (27 June 2009)
- Full disclosure: I was the nominator then, too.
- Since my objections remain unchanged, much of the text of this nomination is copied from the previous.
- I was tempted to {{db-g4}} the new page, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence of recreation.
- I do find it highly suspicious that this page sprang into being fully-grown in one edit, complete with already broken reference links, but I'm trying to give the benefit of doubt.
- If an admin thinks this qualifies for speedy deletion (e.g., based on deleted history), more power to you.
—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete Unsourced original research — Selmo (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: this has problems identical to the original list. As you say, there's no way that this can get over problems such as original research. By the way, I've checked the version deleted some months ago, and the text itself is different, so we can't speedy this as G4. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment while i totally support deletion, i suppose an admin should compare the previously deleted article to determine if this is just a recreation, or if it has been improved. even if improved, i say delete, but at least we would then debate it here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It probably does qualify as speedy delete, but I think that sourced articles about failed projects would be welcome. Most of this is already in the history of development hell anyway, so it's not as if it would be lost through deletion. Why this was brought back with the same name and with no changes... well, beats the development out of me. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Baleet Is this an article about video games, or cars, or is someone who likes it just trying to pad it? horsedreamer 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Possible merge of fully referenced material to relevent articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- CommentBut merging material defeats the purpose... The page is intended to show disappointment or frustration garnered by not-to-be projects. This visibility will disappear if each (sourced) snippet is tucked under individual pages. The aim is to strongly connect a particular project with "development hell", or in other words, this page. Now, few companies are keen to admit their particular project is in this particular kind of trouble. Thus it is very difficult to obtain sources; especially to "prove" the project isn't simply abandoned or delayed, but truly in "development hell". CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not our place to strongly link anything, that is for other writers to do and us to comment on in individual articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't usually like to say "per nom", but I don't think it could be said better. Development Hell is a term that gets thrown around with projects, and it's all subjective to opinion. There's just no way to verify this list. --Teancum (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Random bucket of trivia, the vast majority of which is unverified, about things which are either cancelled or abandoned or merely rumoured or never get off the ground or... what the heck is that about? A lot of this info which can be verified is already in place in a relevant article. Although I can certainly see why some of these are of interest to many people, the way they're thrown together in this textual dustbin for things-which-aren't is depressing. Someoneanother 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Combination of original research, plot summary and gameguide trivia. No assertion of real-world development or real-world treatment --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial fancruft/clutter at best. It's a very brief video game character that can be described in the Mercenaries game articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge into a new article, Mercenaries (series) along with the other two protagonists, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs. Incidentally, article is more in need of cleanup than deletion. Nomination mentions issues with the article's content rather than its notability. Leaning towards a merge, as the nominator is probably correct in that the three protagonists can't stand out on their own, but may fit well into a series article. I'd also be willing to Userfy this article to me for the proposed merge. --Teancum (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- For some reason, my deletion rationale critiques style (and failing WP:WAF isn't grounds for deletion) rather than my real gripe when I nominated articles for deletion, including this one: failure to assert and substantiate a notability claim. I must have just skipped a sentence or something. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Although there are some unreliable references in there, like the official bio and IMDB, the fact there are several sources left, suggest they meet WP:GNG. Also, it's not some random character it's a main playable character, one of only three in the game. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I've taken a closer look at the third-party sources in the article. Setting aside IMDb and the publisher's own page, both the Giant Bomb site and the first IGN link are in-universe summaries that merely regurgitate plot; they are sources of gameguide trivia. Neither the character's first nor last name appear in either of the two reviews. Somehow I overlooked making this assertion in my AfD rationale, so I'll make it here: the article fails to assert, let alone substantiate, a claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this article has enough sources to support itself. The character's personality, skills, appearence and biography are all references in the sources. --WölffReik (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but none of them are out-of-universe, reliable third-party sources with a significant focus on the character, and that is the primary concern. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Closing admin, please take a gander at the above editor's edit contributions and the anonymous IPs on this page. This editor appears also to edit anonymously under 90.208.53.16, 90.202.94.11, and 90.202.94.99. I doubt any of these !votes' perspectives will influence the delete and/or redirect outcome of this AfD, but just want to note the apparent attempt at vote-stacking. (Overlapping interest in fictional green berets/soldiers and martial artists, plus quick contributions to AfDs and category editing, across the four accounts leads me to this conclusion.) I've admonished the account-holder on its talk page re. subverting AfD process. --EEMIV (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Probably not actually best to label this IP an SPA; it's almost certainly also 90.202.94.11 and 90.202.94.99, and has made a decent chunk of edits -- although, I think somewhere there's a whole separate set of language or suggestions about IP editors' contributions at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. A character's in-universe biography does not establish their notability, nor does a review on the game they are characters in. Ultimately, the subject has not received significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources, and so does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I really don't see anything wrong with this article, or any of the other Mercs' characters. It seems to be in more need of a clean-up than a deletion or re-direct. -- 90.202.94.11 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Besides discounting IP !votes in general at AfD, note that this editor's contributions history and the contrib. history for the IP above make these editors almost certainly the same person. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete: After a thorough search through Google News and Google Books, I found only one quick bit in Wired that could be used for reception, and it's a small sentence at best. By himself, this character (and subsequently the other two related characters) don't stand apart from the game enough to warrant separate articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to Mercenaries (series). Edward321 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - should be briefly summarized in the articles of the two games. Insufficient notability beyond the games. Marasmusine (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The article itself and a search for sources produces nothing which demonstrates notability through multiple non-trivial sources which are reliable. Most of what's there is just plot summary, and while I'd support any character having an article should sources warrant it I think this is a case where there was no sourcing for a separate article. Someoneanother 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merge into a character list, even though there are only 3 playable characters. In any case, the one way of handling that is inappropriate is a delete, because a redirect would always be appropriate, since they are mentioned in the main article. Will those saying delete for this please also say why a redirect would be improper? Unless they can, there is no reason for delete. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- There's nothing stopping anybody from creating a redirect aftwerwards, if one is wanted. If I was of the opinion that there was anything here to save then I'd have said redirect. I don't, hence didn't. Someoneanother 09:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- To elaborate: the article is just repetition of the games' plots, in a separate wrapper, with a fair use image. It looks nice, obviously took time to put together, and it's a shame that it ends up here, but that doesn't change what it is or create uses for it. Someoneanother 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Userfy back to original author. These obviously took some time and were written with care, so it may be the best option. The article can incubate until it can be retooled and better sources found. --Teancum (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- NSGP Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "NSGP Championship" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
I can find no evidence that this online tournament is covered in reliable sources and therefore believe it fails the notability criteria. I am also nominating the following related page, because it exists only to elaborate on the NSGP Championship with a list of 2009 participants: - 2009 NSGP Season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gonzonoir (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC) -
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep This tournament exists per http://newstarsoccer.com/newstarforum/showthread.php?t=10255 It does not only elaborate a list of the championship racers, it also contains a table along with the winners, 2nd placed players and of the players that got pole positions and where --85.139.161.97 (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— 85.139.161.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The issue isn't whether it exists, it's whether there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete Existing is great and all, but we need enough independent reliable sources to both establish notability and to use as the basis of the article's content. If these can be provided I will reconsider. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Secret Maryo Chronicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Secret Maryo Chronicles" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Absolute lack of notability. It has been deleted twice and restored once on the basis that the article's contents in the new version are different from the original deleted article. However, it is not different enough to solve the major problems such as notability. Fact of the matter is that fan-made games such as this have a higher standard of notability, so having none is simply unacceptable. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, however in addition to this article SuperTux may also need to be nominated, as it falls under the same failings, and we want inexperienced Wikipedia editors to feel it's a fair treatment so that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't become an issue. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - Keep. Per [6] and [7]. Seems to pass WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete one of a zillion freeware Mario clones. Sorry, but a mention on an Australian blog just isn't going to carry an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Tim Song.Actual 3rd party coverage, even though it's fan-made. Polarpanda (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Since apparently no one bothered notifying the previous AfD and DRV participants - or indeed the author of the latest version of the article - I have done it. All participants of the previous AFDs and DRV who have not commented here have been notified, with the exception of a few SPAs and one blocked user. If I missed anyone, it was purely unintentional. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Tim Song UltraMagnusspeak 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Andrevan@ 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- When the notability of an article is in question, we have a test that we apply: is there non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source? This test is simple, objective and clear, and as Wikipedian guidelines go, it is also old and strong. Tim Song has provided two reliable sources, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial, so the test is passed.
The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia. It is what enables content contributors to decide for themselves whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first. Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it. I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Keep per Tim Song, [8] and [9]. Whenever recommendations are being made it lifts the coverage beyond trivial, in my opinion, even if there isn't much written about the actual subject. Dpmuk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- FloodSim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "FloodSim" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It most likely is, yeah. Still, the current article may be due for a re-write, but we shouldn't hold its origins against the topic. You have more experience than me with conflicts of interest, so do you know where we'd go to look for third-party sources? --Kizor 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note, I will dig around for sources quickly, and list below:
There are a few other sources sitting about too, however they are much shorter and less informative versions of the above. However, I still think this gives notability. A rewrite could be good as there seem to be good claims to notability here. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Also, if a total rewrite is needed due to the COI issue, feel free to drop a message on my talkpage. I would be happy to do it but unfortunately at the moment am a little busy IRL, so if others are able to rewrite thats good too. --Taelus (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think that this game has recieved significant enough to meet the general notability guideline, I found more than Taelus has previously found. I've removed all the previous content that was unsuitable for the article, some more may need to be removed. COI or paid editing isn't a valid argument for deletion so I personally can't see why it should go. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - NanoMission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "NanoMission" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - Please address the Google News, Books and Scholar hits before other editors can claim them as evidence of notability. Are they all non-independent? Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The hits I see are mostly press releases, and minor mentions. Coverage isn't significant enough to excuse the promotional nature behind the article. ThemFromSpace 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, two independent sources added. More mentions in Google Books. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete Spam. If this is notable somebody else will rewrite it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Weak delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayGen, I feel the sources are merely re-worded press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The Business Week article is sufficiently a RS for notability, and the sponsorship by the Wellcome trust is relevant also. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The Business Week article is certainly good. Here's a mention on LibraryJournal.com. Here's another article. The book mentions are fairly minor, but there's three of them. There are also several science-related blog mentions, but they're not worth mentioning. SharkD Talk 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Although several of the sources fall under 'reliable', they are not in-depth at all and I agree with Marasmusine that several of them are mere press-releases tweaked in order to create 'news', for very practical reasons this does not correlate with WP:N. Serious analysis is needed, not lip-service. The Library Journal piece for instance looks good at first blush, but further reading shows it's not the blog writer herself providing the information, and the bit about NanoMission is just academic garble followed by what looks like a copy-and-paste press release. The Business Week source spends very little time actually talking about NanoMission, instead going on about the expected lack of lab techs etc. etc. That's fine in terms of an article, but it's fuck-all use in filling out an article about NanoMission. The Digital Trends piece consists of 3 paragraphs, which is hardly a goodly sized source to start with, only one deals with the NanoMission series and even then only lists the 3 modules/games in turn and provides a minimal description. No, these sources might well be useful in writing up about education in this field but they're not good for writing about the subject of this article. Someoneanother 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
|
