Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Colored Mountains (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. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Colored Mountains (video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not finding anything other than basic listings that do not contribute to notability. None of the four sources in the article contribute to notability. Pretty clear case of when to draftify, but that's been done and the creator immediately moved it back to mainspace, so another unilateral draftify would be a poor idea. (The creator has a declared COI.) I think the only option left is an AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator ignored the rejections of their draft - twice - and recreated this clearly promotional article. Wikipedia is not for spamming with whatever new game you made, WP:GNG is clearly failed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it promotional? Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: It doesn't pass GNG. The creator evaded the rejections of the draft twice. CastJared (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia while creating this, and I assumed that anyone could make an article on anything. Apparently that isn’t the case. I’m not sure why you can’t make an article if you are even slightly related to the subject that it’s on. This article was written knowing that it would be updated when the game was released, and due to the nature of the project (indie 3d platformer) it was near-impossible to get any major sources to cover the game. Unfortunately, I can’t not make a Wikipedia page because then Google results and YouTube gaming wouldn’t show my game, it would show a mountain in Colorado or just the word Roblox. I’m not using or attempting to use this article for promotion, but I need it to use other methods of promotion. If anyone would be willing to try to remove and rewrite whatever I did wrong, that would be less devastating to this project than deleting it and much appreciated.

TL;DR not sure what I did wrong other than write an article about a topic I liked but if someone or multiple people could help fix it instead of deleting it, that would be much appreciated

Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That doesn't mean anything and everything can be included. You may want to read WP:NOT for more insight.

You can make an article if you're related, and people have done it, but it's much harder to be neutral and objective, especially when you get benefits if the article exists/is positive (which is your case). Also, using the Wikipedia page to generate Google and YouTube Gaming results is promotion.

We work with the sources, that's the rule. If you can't get sources to cover your game, we don't have much to work with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zxcvbnm. Clearly the article creator hasn't worked out that Wikipedia isn't for promotion yet. 07:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: the creator has moved the article back to draftspace. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask why all the article was was just a template or two. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability whatsoever. I've also returned the page back to mainspace and blocked the creator for advertising. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator blanked and attempted to G7 this while it was in draftspace, but at some point between then and the move back to mainspace it was restored. I don't see any reason why G7 doesn't apply here, but I could be missing something. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question of whether the blank was done in "good faith" or as part of an attempt to evade scrutiny. Hence I think an AfD is still justified. After all, they ultimately refused to leave it as a draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that their block appeal claims they were being "targeted" which seems to indicate they have read literally nothing in terms of notices or warnings they were given about notability, nor any of the policies, which would explain what is going on pretty clearly. They are lashing out at editors which does not indicate good faith on their part, but rather WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who knows, it may release and become notable, but for now, the sources aren't there. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming game without any coverage, like at all. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2023 (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.