Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grayshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grayshot

Grayshot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable game, with no references outside of itself and other 'In-Game' related sites. Q T C 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn (or rd to Half-Life 2). JJL (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable game mod and no usable secondary sources - Dumelow (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. All references to Half Life 2 and mod have been erased. There are plenty of usable sources dictated within the article. This is a game in development and it is official. I urge those that say otherwise to double check our references as everything spoken in the article as of now is completely legitimate. user:bradjohnson79 10:36, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Delete not a notable game --Pustefix (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The only sources are primary, articles need multiple reliable secondary sources in order to be considered notable, in WP's terms. There's a small piece in Kotaku, which is as much about the prospect of an official game as it is Grayshot, and a press release that was picked up by Gaming Today, neither of which are in-depth and only one of which is independent. They're listed on the game's press page, I'm not having any luck in finding more. The long and short of it is that this is too early to be creating an article on WP. Deletion does not permanently remove what's there, if the game does pass WP:N at some point then it can be restored, cited with additional sources and restored to the encyclopedia. I would oppose a merge or redirect to Half Life 2, despite using the source engine and requiring HL2 (apparently) to run, this is a separate game and needs to stand on its own two feet, if it is released then it is very likely that it will receive enough press to sustain an article. Someoneanother 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Tell a lie, the 1560 radio interview isn't primary, but doesn't really help matters. It's extensive previews and reviews which are needed. Someoneanother 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as notability isn't proven. As per WP:SCRABBLE though, if it becomes notable the article can be recreated. Gazimoff (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regardless of primary or secondary articles, there is nothing spoken in the grayshot entry that claims to be untrue. All statements are referenced with legitimate reference links whether in depth or not. I fail to see the reason for this deletion under the terms of non-notable. User:bradjohnson79 00:10, 20 April 2008
    If a subject does not have any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage, then it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. The press coverage linked to in the article is not sufficient (a press release and some minor mentions.) At the moment, my opinion is delete, but there is no prejudice against recreation at a later date if it achieves better press attention. Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Legitimate? About the only non-self sourced references only refer to the fact that Paramount wanted this games domain name, and nothing about the game itself. Q T C 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If independent, indepth, reliable coverage is what is required, more will be available within the next couple of days as more press contacts are contacting in regards to delivering more coverage on Grayshot from around the web. If the grayshot wiki can have a couple of days of grace period time, I can assure that the coverage required will be posted as soon as it's available this week. User:bradjohnson79 16:47, 21 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.237.193 (talk)
    Above comment really sounds like a borderline WP:SPS violation. Q T C 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold Is that an option?? Might as well give the editor the benefit of the doubt and see if they can turn something up. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.158.131 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out this users contributions. Q T C 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the lone piece from Kotaku doesn't adequately assert notability in my opinion. Fails to assert any other form of notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:RS; also, the developer appears to be non-notable itself, which is a minus. Gary King (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (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.