Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exmortis 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tone 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exmortis 3[edit]
- Exmortis 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of coverage in reliable sources CynofGavuf (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if JayIsGames is considered a reliable source (nothing definite at WP:VG/RS): [1]. Even less sure about talkingaboutgames.com [2], but this is the only significant coverage I can find. At best, redirect to a list of Flash or Browser-based games. If JayIsGames is no good as a source, then delete. Marasmusine (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I did put up for speedy deletion but was removed, but with administrator telling me it it's pretty subject in this case and should be left to the AfD. Nothing to cure notability concerns in the form of standard outside sources seems to appear anywhere I look or search. Neither the developer nor publisher have Wikipedia articles which makes the game all the more suspect. After looking through the edit history, I'm not at all surprised by the solicitation to have readers purchase... a user nearly identical account name has this editor seems to have gone around writing gushing reviews for the game despite a lukewarm metascore... probably neutrality concern that would need an outside rewrite. Actually, I'm more toward a keep than I was a few days ago when the CSD was removed, but still far from convinced it shouldn't be deleted. I'm going to remove the external link on the article page that is a purchase page for the product, also Datheisen (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is no reason that game sites cannot count as reliable sources. However, I do find it strange that this game has a page while Exmortis 1 and 2 do not. I might recommend that someone who is familiar with 1 and 2 make pages for them, if they want this page to stay. If that happens, then I see no reason why this page must be deleted. Bibbly Bob (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No... it's not that it's a games site source. It's that there are zero sources in the article, as in none. None listed. None cited. There but one external link, which is informational at best and self-promotional at worst. A link I deleted a few days ago was a direct link to purchase the game was of only slightly lower quality than the link left. Google search brings up almost exclusively company sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources except under extreme circumstances. Better still for evaluation is WP:GARAGE ...just substitute band with game. The only thing in the article that even proves the game exists is the iffy external link, since neither the developer nor the publisher have articles we can check against. As for creating new articles for the others? WP:ENN gives a decent explanation that even if something exists, or even if something closely related exists, you still need cited resources that can survive reliability check to justify an article Datheisen (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think perhaps he was referring to the use of JayIsGames as a possible source. Marasmusine (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, duh. Can't believe I was that dense. In any case, if that even wants to attempt to be used as a reliable source it would still need to actually be in the article as a reference. I'm of the opinion that it still really wouldn't help much... as is said in the comment below, its entry in Wikipedia specifically states that it's a blog but has picked up several contributors. That's questionable as a source for much of anything, and certainly not as a lone source. Datheisen (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think perhaps he was referring to the use of JayIsGames as a possible source. Marasmusine (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No... it's not that it's a games site source. It's that there are zero sources in the article, as in none. None listed. None cited. There but one external link, which is informational at best and self-promotional at worst. A link I deleted a few days ago was a direct link to purchase the game was of only slightly lower quality than the link left. Google search brings up almost exclusively company sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources except under extreme circumstances. Better still for evaluation is WP:GARAGE ...just substitute band with game. The only thing in the article that even proves the game exists is the iffy external link, since neither the developer nor the publisher have articles we can check against. As for creating new articles for the others? WP:ENN gives a decent explanation that even if something exists, or even if something closely related exists, you still need cited resources that can survive reliability check to justify an article Datheisen (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: I don't see the sources identified by Marasmurine as meeting WP:RS. Our article Jay Is Games, for example, describes that site as a blog and lacks any reliable source itself..--Peter cohen (talk) 21:14, 24 October 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.