Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Exile (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Exile (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about a game that has been looking for a publisher for over a year and has swtiched systems at least once. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL in terms of success; if it ever becomes successful, an article can be created then. I cannot find any substantial magazine or Internet coverage that would qualify as a reliable source. Thus, I believe this does not pass the notability policy and should be deleted. hbdragon88 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir, I'm somewhat confused by some of your comments.You say you can't find any coverage, but the referances and external links show that there's plenty of coverage on the subject. The latest article written about it (looking at the references) being September 17th, 2007. Also, while the game has no publisher, it's still being developed. If you checked the external links (specifically, the official message board), you can see that Vincent Dehaut (a founder of Studio Archcraft, the developer), constantly posts updates on the progress of the game. Sima Yi 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage that is reliable. For video games, that would be stuff like magazines or online sites like IGN, GaemSpot, or other sites. This article mostly has forum postings and small blogs and the ilk, which are self-published sources. Such sources are allowed as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources," which unfortunately this article is. hbdragon88 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir, again I am confused by your comments. Gonintendo.com is a very well known and respected video gaming site. Considering it runs ads to generate profit, it's just as much a business as IGN, no? More to the poinnt the main and most important source in this article is the official trailer straight from the developer. You can't find more credible information than info given out by the ones making the game, can you? Sima Yi 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the only source is what worries me. It is the subject of it, per WP:N, but does not discuss it in detail (bullet point number 2 of WP:N). 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The game is NN, and the only part of the article that has a source backing up every fact is the Controversy section. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NASCAR Fan24, your comments also seem to be inaccurate. Everything in the article is sourced. If you check the reference which has the game's official trailer in it, you can see everything there is confirmed. Sima Yi 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "The game will feature eight playable characters, more than 100 different physical and magical skill combos, and more than 100 weapons and 200 pieces of armour." I don't see a source for that. It clearly says in WP:V that self-published sources (i.e. the official website) are not considered reliable and should only be used in conjunction with reliable third-party sources (i.e. Gamespot). There have been no major references in third-party sources, and this therefore is a non-notable game per WP:N. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Sir, please believe me when I say I'm not trying to embarass you, but all of that information you listed is in the very first reference.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sima Yi (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:N. There have been no major references to the game in any reputable third-party source. That makes the game non-notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Sima Yi. Everything in the article is sourced, and thus there is no need for deletion. Dark Locke — Dark Locke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. It may be sourced, but most, if not all, of the sources are unreliable. Especially the forums. — Malcolm (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. The article itself admits "not much is known", so why is there an article? Clarityfiend 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time as the required multiple reliable independent sources become available - while the game doesn't even have a publisher this doesn't seem likely to happen and we can't assume it ever will. Miremare 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The biggest source on this article is a fan blog that isn't even near the level of any major media web site, and most are forums, self-published, and nn blogs. Not enough content to warrant existence, padded by an absurd controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let me get this straight. The article is about a game that does not have a publisher, does not have a platform (looks speculative to me), and does not have a release date. There is also no information on the battle system or the story and the article is completely devoid of any verifiable sources. How can an article get any more crystally than this? --Cyrus Andiron 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mostly self-published sources and forums. Cap'n Walker 20:18, 3 October 2007 (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.