Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of worlds

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of worlds[edit]

Non-notable freeware game.Conflict of interest is apparent as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly torn on this one. The article is one day old. Normally I would suggest giving the editor some time to refine the article, but the breadth of the edits implies copying text verbatim from other materials. It is doubtful that other editors would be interested in maintaining such a discordant volume of information. Hence the recommendation to delete. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reviews are user generated, not editorial. It may be notable next year. Then again, it might not. Right now, it is just not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hit it on the head with the lack of reliable sources as well as the obvious conflict of interest. MuZemike (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reviews are neither significant or reliable. If PC Powerplay give it good coverage in Dec/Jan and it receives substantial coverage in other publications, then it will pass the notability threshold, but not until then. As an aside, I recognize that chipset - is this not just an RPG Maker-made game? Marasmusine (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the tools used to create a game, it's whether or not it passes notability which is the sticking point. RPG Maker games can and do gain enough coverage to become notable, ditto Flash games. Someone another 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it is featured in a magazine there is no guarantee it's going to be covered in enough depth to make the source usable, a mag I read regularly covers 6 or 9 mainstream games on a single page, each of which is nothing more than a couple of lines and a near-meaningless percentage score. The only other thing I can see are some user reviews which are of no use. Does not demonstrate notability. Someone another 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can someone tell me why this is unnotable? I would say being downloaded as many times as it has been is notable. Give it a chance. Play it, have some fun! I just want to acknowledge that I have made my contribution to gaming. I'm not trying to promote it or advertise it, I'm just trying to assert it's existence. How else could I show this? What exactly would I need to do to keep this article online? Would you like a screenshot of the interview I had to do for PC Powerplay? (which I did online) As for the first objection, relating to me "copying material from other sources", I didn't. I was typing and saving the page as I went along. They were not meant to be seperate edits. Please consider keeping this. I have seen worse and more obscure games featured on wikipedia. So what if it is an RPG Maker game? I have the perception that someone has something against RPG Maker games. (RPG Maker DOES utilize Ruby, by the way.) It's the most popular RPG Maker game this year, and is the final RPG Maker 2003 game to win a MISAOS award. Is any of this relevant? Dark Gaia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've nothing against RPG-Maker made games, I was just surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the article, especially when the screenshot showed an unmodified stock chipset. I apologize, as it wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion. WP:N should answer your question. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to read the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have, including WP:V and WP:N. It is not how many hits, downloads, etc. a game gets that establishes notability, it is the qualitative sources that establish it (see WP:BIGNUMBER). We are also not discussing about other articles. If other articles have the same problems, then they will be dealt with in due time, as well (see WP:WAX). Now if the game was covered in PC Powerplay, then that might be something there, depending what the content is; however, the general notability guideline also requires significant coverage in sources independent of the topic to fully meet said guideline, which is halfway there. Any coverage on the awards in which the game may be mentioned? MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 20 October 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.