Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wish (computer 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish (computer game)[edit]

Another aborted MMORPG... sorry... UMMORPG (It's Ultra)... same deal as Trials of Ascension, promotional article for a game that thinks its all that, but simply didn't make it. Not notable. ZayZayEM 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Funding was cut. The latest developer journal was in early 2006. Non-notable, not likely to gain notability.--Ispy1981 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm The game is definitely not notable. The story of how the game came to not be is interesting. I like the article. But it's probably not right for an encyclopaedia. So I guess I gotta go with delete. Capmango 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search reveals plenty of reliable sources attesting to the game's notability. The article needs cleaning up, but poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion.Evouga 09:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being mentioned on the internet does not attest to notability. Notability is about whether anyone will really care to know about this thing's existence in the future. --ZayZayEM 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought notability was receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I don't see any policy instructing us to bias for or against any particular medium. Evouga 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the game actually comes to fruition at any point it may become notable. At the moment, the game doesn't exist, the article doesn't have any proper secondary sources and a search of the net doesn't uncover many WP:RS either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:21, 24 June 2007 (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.