Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel (2006 video game)

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. postdlf (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel (2006 video game)

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

A non-notable cancelled video game. Tagged as failing notability guidelines since late 2009, and all in-depth coverage found from "Fuel (video game)"-type searches points to the newer 2009 game by Codemasters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete maybe better Merge? I'm finding just a few articles that does confirm the game was planned including an appearance at an E3 event. Of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot but it does show we had a game here at one point. I don't think deletion is necessarily the best option but outside of merging to the publisher Dreamcatchers (which seems odd), I'm not sure what other course of action is there. It is not like there's a lot of detail on what the game would have been beyond a hybrid racing game. And while I initially thought this was tied to Codemaster's 2009 Fuel, it does appear 100% completely different (as that would have made a good merge point). --MASEM (t) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not querying the fact the game was planned. The thing is, it never received much coverage, it was planned by a fairly minor company, and it never got very far into the production. I wouldn't have a problem with a merger into the publisher's article, but I'm not sure how much would really fit there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm not sure of. I would not merge a game into a publisher if they were only just publishing the game (we usually don't catalog what a publisher offers otherwise), there's no pre-existing IP, the dev studio is not notable. As we don't have to document every planned-but-cancelled game, deletion seems okay, but if we can figure out a good merge target, all the better. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; I can't find a merge target either. Redirect is useless because of disambig in title; I feel like merging to the publisher would be WP:UNDUE, however small; and there really is no better target. Ansh666 21:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage for a game that never made it to release. I did find a mention in this paywaleld article but cannot access it. Given that it is about music being used in video games, I doubt the coverage is signficant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable for lack of coverage, as in the reasons stated by Ansh and Whpq. --Bejnar (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2013 (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.