Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InkBall

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 Keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InkBall[edit]

Is being shipped with a Microsoft OS notable? The only sources are sources from Microsoft (which are not reliable), and that in a way, makes it not pass WP:N. ViperSnake151 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say it does. JuJube (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Results 1 - 10 of about 45,700 for inkball microsoft -site:microsoft.com) would tend to indicate to me that the nom has not done his/her homework. Microsoft links are more properly termed not independent of the topic, for what it's worth. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above reasons. --TV-VCR watch 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes it is notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — The number of hits a game gets on a search engine (see WP:GOOGLEHITS) is not a determinant of notability of a game. The absence of verifiable, third-party (i.e. non-Microsoft) articles that would otherwise establish said notability can be grounds for deletion. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a game guide or instruction manual; this article reads like both. MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change to keep after discovery of verifiable sources to establish the article's notability. See below comment. MuZemike (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because the article lacks links doesn't mean they don't exist. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then be bold and appropriately place them in the article. BTW, I now change my decision above to keep in light of the discovery. Make sure they get placed in there so the article doesn't get nominated again for AfD. MuZemike (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So added--well, at least the best and most useful of the links. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Microsoft Windows components (unless more sources can be found) and remove "game guide" information. Many of the Google search results are not useful, as they are not reliable sources (e.g. forums), or do not mention anything more than the name. There are a few results: [1], [2], however I am unable to find much encyclopedic information. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not an indication of notability, and as already pointed out, those sources cannot be considered reliable. Unless sources can be pin pointed which satisfy the reliable secondary sources requirement of both WP:WEB and WP:N, my choice is to delete. --Izno (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reliable third-party sources being found to meet the WP:GNG. This is exactly how participants in an AFD can engage in a constructive discussion that helps Wikipedia rather than merely !voting. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep article as it currently exists is weak, but there are plenty of sources available to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:14, 23 July 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.