Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Element Development
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This team was founded by Daniel Becker . Notable? Fplay 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm new to this whole deal but... What is the reason that this entry should be deleted? What would be required of it so that it could remain? (unsigned by DBecker a.k.a. Daniel Becker, founder of Dark Element Development) B.Wind 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia editors generally treat articles that people have written about themselves with suspicion. (See Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas.) But apart from that, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Your article is an "about us" web page for a software development project — a project that has yet to demonstrate any tangible evidence of its existence other than your setting up a web site and posting on some discussion fora and in some self-submission software directories. The thing that is required for the article to remain is nothing to do with editing the article, and is everything to do with your project itself, and it being deemed to be notable by the world at large. Your project should be the subject of non-trivial third-party published works (such as "in depth" magazine articles, news reports, reviews, books, player guides, papers in academic journals, and so forth) by multiple reliable sources that are independent of your group. That way, an encyclopaedia article can be written that (a) is an encyclopaedia article and not simply an entry in a software directory, and (b) doesn't rely upon your sole word as its source. Uncle G 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanity. The article was written and repeatedly edited by the founder of the subject of the article. B.Wind 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The only available source for this article is Daniel Becker himself, as far as I can determine. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:07, 20 December 2005 (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.