Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logicity

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 Merge with Global warming game Nakon 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logicity[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. Deleted twice in a 5 month time period, under A7 for failing to provide a sufficient enough reason for keeping it. I'd probably also suggest that the user who created it, [1] appears to have a conflict of interest regarding this, with at least 2 notices for the page on his usertalk space. The article itself doesn't provide any real sort of notability (with web searches not returning much either) and its content is asserted in a promotional tone. Although, I do commend the efforts by Petrolmaps. I'll be open to a withdrawal if their is consensus to keep at this moment in time. Rudget . 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Logicity article was deleted 5 months ago for good reason, as the game had not been released yet. I decieded to reinstate the article on the 17th of January as it has now been released. There will not be much information in web searhces as it hasn't been given time to circulate the search engines yet. The article is not meant for promotion, but to simply give readers more information on the game, as the other six Global warming games have done so. Darrenackers (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (Ignore this and please see further down) Without information such as reception there is no viable article, but without reliable secondary sources that information cannot be verified and is therefore subject to removal, leaving the article as nothing more than a description of the game - back to square one. Searching google news/web/scholar/books produces a couple of sources which repeat a single source, a very short blog post from New Scientist, which is now cited in the article. It's nowhere near enough for an article according to the notability standard. Fully support recreation if sources appear but they should come first. The other alternative is a merge to Defra or somewhere similar. Someone another 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course, it could just be merged and redirected to Global warming game - the issue has gained some currency but it's not like there's going to be a thousand games about global warming, its inclusion there is perfectly relevant. Any better? Someone another 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global warming game The problem with notability has only arisen because it's been split into a separate article, "heeeere I am, ha ha ha", meaning that multiple angles need to be explored and multiple reliable and non-trivial sources have become necessary. They aren't out there, so we deal.. What is it? Why was it created? Who created it? < answer those questions neutrally and cite them within Global warming game and chop the rest. On to the next similar game, demonstrate notability or merge/delete. Problem solved. Someone another 23:07, 22 January 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.