Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epileptic Gaming (2nd nomination)

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. kur ykh 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epileptic Gaming

If you came here because you were told to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability; no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Claims to have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Attack of the Show, but I was unable to verify the claim. Article is also mostly trivia. VF10 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— VF10 (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) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last afd closed as delete. Much too long to warrant a G4, but reads as nothing but trivia/fansite/spam without assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research with little apparent real-world notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirmed to have appeared in the Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 12/22/2007, Vol. 250 Issue 147, pW2, 0p. TheGunrun (talk • contributions) 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) — TheGunrun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you elaborate? Also, what is the abovementioned appearance in Attack of the Show? I saw it sourced to a brief mention in a "Best of Stickam" article yesterday, but now it links to a video-segment with no mention of Epileptic Gaming at all as far as I can see. VF10 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this, the mention in Wall Street Journal seems to be about "Up All Night" - not Epileptic Gaming though it's produced by many of the same people. VF10 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per TheGunrun --H8erade (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page does plenty to display the show's notability. I'll add some more stuff just so there will be no question in anyone's mind. — 99.148.150.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That comment is more or less copied verbatim from the last AfD. Anyway, how do you think it's notable? "I'll add some more stuff" isn't a valid reason to keep an article; you might as well add it now to prove your point. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of the lengthy rewrite, all of the notability concerns raised at the initial AFD are still valid as no significant coverage in reliable sources appears to exist. Nancy ^talk 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Rally cry as shown on their forums here. MuZemike 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm, one of them seems to have made a backup of the article; better be careful of any G4s, should it be deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly neutral - but feel it fair to point out that the nominator is also a single purpose account — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also true. MuZemike 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a single purpose account is just unfair and deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.150.240 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claim of notability is tangential. Marasmusine (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2009 (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.