Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Rockstar

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:26Z

[edit] Project Rockstar

Project Rockstar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Rockstar-logo-normal.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable game OriginalJunglist 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep By who's definition? Yours? If you work hard enough, every game listed here could be considered 'non-notable' in some way or other. And considering the article is nearly two years old, it'll take more than a single person saying it's non-notable to get it deleted. Also, considering half of the articles you contributed consist of a single sentence, it's kind of ironic.

The game has won multiple on-line awards. Simply because you've never heard of it, doesn't make it non-notable.HalfShadow 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article fails to assert Project Rockstar's notability per WP:N. The only on-line awards that the game has won are monthly user polls on a non-notable website and an unsourced, non-notable award from a telecommunications company.--OriginalJunglist 000, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Which was taken care of well on half a year ago. Possibly longer. This was looked over by a few admins, so if it were non-notable, it wouldn't be here. HalfShadow 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see any sources cited here. A review in Web User ("UK’s best selling internet magazine", allegedly) appears to be the closest thing to non-trivial independent reporting (the surest sign of notability per WP:N, WP:WEB) my sad google skillz can find. Nothing on Google news, Factiva not checked, but Google news archive finds that this was "Amy's site of the day" in the Daily Mirror 14-Feb-2003, and there may have been some serious coverage in Multichannel News. I suspect that better legwork would find sufficient published material to produce a verifiable article, but I can't prove it and I'm not much of an eventualist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources. TJ Spyke 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources, failing WP:V, failing WP:WEB. The awards it claims to have won don't seem important (some website's game of the month, won some advertising convention award for "Best Online Music Game"). Wickethewok 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources added. --Alan Au 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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.