Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludometrics

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. So Why 11:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludometrics[edit]

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

I couldn't find independent coverage on the subject. Fails NCORP. Reads a bit like an advertisement. Tagged for potentially failing NCORP since May 2012. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical non notable company article that conflates game reviews with notability for the company itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even what's in the article wouldn't indicate notability for the video games! --Izno (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nom. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2017 (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.