Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied Science (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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Science (video game)

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

I couldn't find any secondary sources providing coverage of the game. Also, the author's edit history is only related to the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing wikipedia and yes my only edits have been to making the page for my game. This is something I know about and can contribute on, anything else I would consider myself an expert on is already well written in wikipedia. If the page does not meet standards I'm happy to fix it up, please let me know what needs to be changed. There are many other games on wikipedia, why should Applied Science not be allowed a page? User:Reaper1906 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you would have to show notability for your game by showing where it's been covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. While this doesn't automatically mean "mainstream coverage", this is usually what it boils down to for a lot of games. Blogs don't count towards notability, nor does being entered in any sort of routine database type scenario. A reliable source would be something along the lines of PC Gamer writing an article about your game, but even then you'd have to have multiple independent and reliable sources about the game. As far as other games having articles, the presence of other games on here doesn't mean that every game should have an article. There are a lot of articles on here that do not pass notability guidelines, so all that an article for another game might mean is that it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. Of course it could also mean that the game passes notability guidelines, but either way WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't usable as an argument for keeping an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and ultimately couldn't find any coverage in any independent and reliable sources. I see where it's available for download, but the stuff I'm finding only shows that this exists, not that it's notable. Reaper, please don't take this as a personal slight, as the vast majority of games out there on the internet do not pass notability guidelines in general and that includes a lot of games that would otherwise be considered well-known.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going going gone, Not notable, also couldn't find any verifiable references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 16:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is how WP determines which topics/ideas get article space (encyclopedia, not directory). This game does not yet meet this criteria. czar · · 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2012 (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.