Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endgame: Singularity

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. Without prejudice towards later recreation if at some point the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endgame: Singularity

The notability of this game isn't apparent, and the first thing on the game's home page, after the Google ads, is "I am currently looking for a job (willing to relocate as needed). I am skilled with both Python and Linux, along with assorted other languages. Feel free to contact me using the username evilmrhenry at this ___domain." I think the article may be more about attracting publicity than about benefiting Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. Ward3001 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Might the use of these allow the article to be made encyclopedic? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having a few hundred Google hits does not confer notability nor make something encyclopedic. I can Google my name and get at least 100 hits; if I worked at getting my name on websites, I probably could increase that to several hundred. I don't have a Wikipedia article, nor should I. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn ~~Provisional delete~~ as I cannot find any information in reliable sources to verify the content of this article. Wikipedia cannot publish articles without being confident in their veracity. I will reconsider if substantial reliable coverage is found. the skomorokh 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing comment as sources have been provided and I am not knowledgable enough to assess their reliability. the skomorokh 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that the page was created by a user who has been active since January on a number of articles, and that the article itself is just a bare bones description of the game, the fact that the developer is touting his services on the homepage has little bearing on whether this is spam or not. I don't see any, just a stub without sources demonstrating notability. As far as that's concerned, there are two decent sources, Jay is Games and Play This Thing (a site ran by Greg Costikyan) here and here. Someone another 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, there's reception information in both which can be used to create another section. Someone another 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it started to sink in on me today that this is the game's home page and it's some guy's hobby page, not a slick commercial page. I'm relenting.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — looking at the article, it seems like that the WP:SPAM problems have been fixed and two sources referenced. However, they aren't the best sources, and it needs more to avoid deletion, unfortunately. MuZemike (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: sources just aren't gonna cut it, although the article has improved. Still need something from a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and standards of editorial review. Not sure that "Jay Is Games" fits the bill, although I'm open to discussion. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of citations from mainstream sources. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 October 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.