Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle in Cube Sector
- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Much of the content violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. Andre (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm not really particurally happy with my own article anymore anyway. --GUTTERTAHAH 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed you wanted the edit history. If you wish, provided that the article fails the AFD, we can move the article into your userspace and delete the redirect. I'm pretty sure that's not against policy. Andre (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice. Thank you. --GUTTERTAHAH 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion -- Personally, I like this page (as it's informative about the game, which I've played) but these mystical notability guidelines can murder anything regardless of how well-written and informative an article is. --72.193.66.186 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't mystical -- they're spelled out quite clearly throughout Wikipedia. Andre (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment note that WP:SOFTWARE isn't policy. I'm neither for or against deletion. 65.118.187.102 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You really have it in for independent games, don't you? First Blue Twilight, now Cube Sector... H Hog 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with being independent. Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. As it happens, very few games created by amateurs using game creation software can make that claim. Andre (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that a game's notability is directly equivalent to its media coverage rather then its popularity among players? H Hog 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I'm saying. See WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that a game's notability is directly equivalent to its media coverage rather then its popularity among players? H Hog 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with being independent. Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. As it happens, very few games created by amateurs using game creation software can make that claim. Andre (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article does not establish notability of the subject. Daily Click is not a reliable source. It has been mentioned here that WP:SOFTWARE is not a policy, and this is true: it is at the moment a proposed guideline. However, all of the established and proposed notability guidelines are in agreement that the primary criterion for notability is that a subject has been discussed in multiple, independent, non-trivial published works. One justification for this standard is that it is impossible to write a good article that complies with Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY) unless there are multiple, independent sources on which to base the article. Chondrite 22:44, 7 December 2006 (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.