Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isomer (video 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isomer (video game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Isomer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

PROD disputed by (likely, original was an IP) article creator. Article is about an unreleased game with zero independent (third party), reliable sources mentioning it. Every single source cited is either the developer's website or a website allowing the developer to write an article and his own game. In order to have an Wikipedia article, there needs to be multiple, independent (not the developer or someone involved with him) reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage (not just mentioning it exists). There are approximately a bazillion web sites out there that cover video games, many of which have been deemed reliable sources for Wikipedia in the past. If a number of them ever do articles on this game (and only this game, not just mentioned as part of a round up), or a real print magazine ever takes notice, an argument could be made that it deserves a Wikipedia article. Right now the article is just free advertising on our servers for a personal project. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't indicate notability and the sources did not either. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing the notability threshold of WP:GNG with multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Given it is in alpha, it is unlikely to receive any coverage just yet if it ever does. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:22, 12 November 2013 (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.