Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark 22

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ark 22[edit]

Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, might deserve a bullet point in Game Maker it's game engine --Steve 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame, the end. Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google yields 17,800 hits. That is small but sizable following. That said, IMHO it still doesn't meet in WP:SOFTWARE. Nephron T|C 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though Danny's comments pretty much mirror my personal attitude towards fanmade games. EVula 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable assertions of notability. The Kinslayer 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If Google is showing 14,400,000 hits, then no need to delete. Also, if other games can remain in Wiki, there's no point in deleting this --N R S | ^T/_M\^B 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afriad I question the validity of that google search. 'Ark 22' is a very generic name so it stands to reason that most of those results have nothing to do with this game. How about providing direct links to some of those websites that establish notability? And as for the other games arguement, I feel judging any article in relation to another is a very poor thing to do, as articles should only be judged in relation to Wiki policies and guidelines, and secondly, most fan games are now being examined with a view to deletion if notability is not provided. The other games are usually only being 'allowed' insofar as no-one has had time to look at a specific article, but check the CVG project page to see just how many fan games are currently at AfD, and more are sure to be nominated soon.The Kinslayer 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you forgot to add quotes around your search term, and even with quotes a search for "Ark 22" brings mostly unrelated stuff, e.g. "... they came to Henderson from Hot Springs, Ark. 22 years ago..." and lots more. A More reasonable search specific to this game would be "Ark 22" +"Game Maker" which brings us 43 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn Audiobooks 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nice article, but I don't think it meets notability req's. P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a Google search for "Ark 22" game and received only 1080 hits. Nothing to suggest notability, however. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability criterion is a subjective argument, which does nothing other than put the burden of proof on the article's author every time a discussion of deletion comes up. The article is notable because it has actual content. Rōnin 22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the verifiability policy. Self-published material, because the threshold for creating them is very low, should have more rigorous requirements for verifiability (never mind notability, which requires multiple non-trivial third-party instances of verifiability). The reloaded interview is not sufficient, because most of the article is asking the creator questions (the content that the creator answers is considered primary source material). The fact that it's published on the web should not make the verifiability requirements less stringent then other forms of self-publishing. ColourBurst 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and previous comments. --Kunzite 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 09:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOT A FUCKING FANGAME!--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 12:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:32, 29 October 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.