Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasslevania

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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasslevania[edit]

Non-notable free game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided to assert notability. For example, the comment that "Overall, reviews for the game were generally positive." - if there are reviews, can they not be cited? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I come up with are totally unreliable or trivial mentions. There's a 'guest review' posted on TIGSource (IE reader review) and a trivial mention on PCWorld (which is reviewing another game by the same developer). I had a look for sources for this one awhile ago and came up with none then. Someone another 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fan-made game. JIP | Talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. Interestingly, the main site for this game seems to have gone offline some time ago. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No homepage, as User said the comment is "...reviews for the game were generally positive..." without reference to those reviews, and nothing about the game seems groundbreaking. This entry seems to be an ad for a product, not an informational page.D3l8 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Around! The homepage is there, I don't know what you mean. You can find it here- [1] You can get sources for reviews right on the site's review page, which is here- [2]. "Nothing about the game seems groundbreaking" Um, since when is that considered criteria for a Wiki page? Why don't you go and nominate a thousand other Wiki game pages for deletion then if that's your gold standard. Nobody had any issues with Hasslevania being put on Wikipedia months ago until now. I'll go and try to save his article by putting the "new" links on it. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I know the creator of this game and something stinks around here... TheHenge (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a home page exists does not establish notability. Otherwise I would be a notable enough person to have my own article since I do have my own site. As far as the reviews are concerned:
- PC World: the person says nothing else but to go check the game, which also happens to be on that same page. Nothing else.
- The Daily Click: None of these reviews pass WP:V; all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established.
- TIGsource: Can you show that reviews coming from this site are reliable besides simply saying that it is?
- Indygamer, Slimaczek, Victory Gamer: See The Daily Click.
- E-Mails: Are you kidding?
Please try to read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:VG/S. While you're at it, read WP:ALLORNOTHING regarding the other thousands of Wiki game articles. MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with MuZemike - there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source? Alright so TigSource- if it had a reliable review of this game- would then merit a green light for this article over the other websites? Okay sure e-mail reviews could be anything I understand that but I'm curious: What makes TigSource more reputable or more valid than any of the others? Have you checked their editorial degrees too? Especially Daily Click which is huge in Europe and very viable to many others, are they all editorial novices? One review is from an admin there. You said "all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established." I don't know for sure, you may be right, but by saying "seem" you also don't know. Go ask them and get whatever proof you need. At least nobody argued that saying this should be deleted because it's not ground breaking was bush league at best. It's apparent to me you all will win and this will be deleted but I really wonder if there was nothing else you could have been doing with your time instead of depriving people like me who are fans of this game and come here to read about it at times. Sorry guys but that's pretty sh*tty. TheHenge (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (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.