Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventures in the Stars

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. JForget 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in the Stars

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

Non notable video game. DimaG (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no record of this game on the internet at all, which is bizarre since so many arcade emulation and database sites exist, is this a fake or what? No sources = not verified or shown to be notable. Someone another 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Someoneanother's observation. I too cannot find a single word about it (apart from the handful of Wiki-clones using the identical language from the article itself). The same goes for the game's alleged developer, publisher, and designers (though I do recall a character named Robert Blake in the intergalactic science-fiction Marathon Trilogy...). Interestingly, in going back through the history of the article it looks like it at one point had a picture of the game, but the image was deleted for lack of source information. Furthermore, the caption for the image read "Space Invaders screenshot" which of course is an entirely different arcade game. -Thibbs (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – complete lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 03:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per complete lack of any sources at all, let alone verifiable ones. Likely a homebrew game that nobody knew about, or a WP:HOAX. --Teancum (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (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.