Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemy Classic

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. Fram (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Classic[edit]

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

Non-notable smartphone game Orange Mike | Talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, my article is being deleted because it is not notable. It is a relatively new game, so it is not notable as of yet. Can I suggest we wait for news of the game to spread a bit before you actually conisder deleting it? Det.abu —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

We generally do it the other way around - ie we wait for something to become notable before we have an article on it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable game. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per author who pointed out that it isn't notable yet. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTYET. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - so since the COI author admits it's not notable, just WP:UPANDCOMING, should we treat it as a form of A7, deletion at author request? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However you treat it, just delete it. There is enough consensus that it's not notable, and it can't be notable before it is. There is no hurry for this article. To be notable it needs more than just to exist - it needs third party sources. --Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (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.