Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechQuest

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. I appreciate the final argument made, but it still does not demonstrate notability or verifiability. Should the subject reach a point where it can do so, we can bring this article back. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MechQuest

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

In addition to failing all standards for notability, this article is completely loaded with game guide content. Chardish (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agree with nom, although I believe that the game hasn't even been released yet and is still in the final stages of testing, so WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Spawn Man Review Me! 09:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Techically, it's out. Like most online games (all AE ones included) it updates often, so I can understand why you feel that way. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on the grounds of notability. The game did not gather enough attention on reliable sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Game Rankings or Ign. Gamespot does have a page on the game. However, the only available data are its tech info and a player review. There are no full review from the Gamespot staff nor news coverage.--Lenticel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The artivle does not give guidence, but info. And the game is out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.204.130 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Notable developer/producer, will have enough secondary media coverage once it's out. We can have a stub sized article like we do with every highly anticipated game. I rewrote the article to comply with WP:GAMECRUFT - the above editors are encouraged to review their opinions. User:Krator (t c) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Will have enough secondary media coverage" - that seems to fly in the face of WP:CRYSTAL. Games that are actually highly anticipated have secondary media coverage now: see Spore, StarCraft II, Street Fighter IV, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, etc. - Chardish (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Note that this is a web-based game aimed at the more "casual" market and thus should probably be held to a different standard than games developed more conventionally within the industry, as the industry press under reports this market even when the user base or general interest in a game is high. A casual game shouldn't be expected to reach Bejeweled levels of press coverage to qualify for an article. Note also that Bejeweled has perhaps been played by more people than any other game this decade, yet even then the press coverage is sparse. Orphic (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:CRYSTAL is about the contents of articles. We are certainly allowed to speculate in the Wikipedia namespace. That said, I agree that real anticipation is usually accompanied by media coverage... especially if there have been betas. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable, but it is desperate need for a rewrite. Once it's rewritten, it should be fine. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:42, 10 December 2*Keep. This game has actual paying subscribers, and has already gone through many new releases. This game is also listed on many online game and cheat sites including Newgrounds and Gamerzplanet. Mario Sonic[10:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

007 (UTC)

  • Keep.i want it to be kept.i play the game personally.i really want a article here about it.plz,for the sweet ghost of dookie keep it here.71.190.28.251 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy It's a notable developer but secondary sources should come first. I've had a look for some and come up with none. Userfying for the creator and others to work on means it can dropped back in place when it's found its notability legs, hopefully larger and better to boot. Default to keep if anyone can come up some sources. Someone another (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This game is a pretty big game from a company that is growing. I think it's notable enough to keep. But it needs to be locked down in some way to prevent it's rabid fanbase from turning it into a game guide. It should be dedicated to "Real Life" info about the game only (ex date of development, people involved company history, popularity, etc. Oorang (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Way back in the days of last year, we usually did that through the process of maintenance. I got the anti-creep barnstar on my user page that way. It's surprisingly seldom mentioned in AfDs nowadays, but there should be no reason why keeping half an eye on the article wouldn't keep it on track unless we get, like, a dozen fans a week. Work in progress, mind - it's not required nor possible to hold strictly to an optimal version at all times. --Kizor (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Still haven't seen any Keep votes that amount to more than WP:ILIKEIT. If it's really notable, there will be significant coverage on it in reliable secondary sources. If such coverage does not exist, then it's not notable. The burden is on those who wish to keep to find those sources (though I've tried, too.) - Chardish (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep How about this - the persistence and popularity (in terms of contributions from many editors) of this entry and many, many others like it, in the face of rigorous examination from AfDs and the cruft crusade, demonstrates an evolving consensus as to what constitutes an acceptable standard of entry for Wikipedia. I'm not attempting to WP:WAX anything in here, rather I'm pointing to how precedent from previous AfDs and existing editor practice suggests a more permissive standard of notability than is currently codified in written policy. As to written policy, I refer to WP:Policy itself, which quite reasonably explains that policy is primarily the result of "codification of current convention and common practice that already have wide consensus... The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first" (emphasis mine). In other words, policy (such as WP:N) follows practice, not the other way around. And the consensus common practice seems to be that entries which ambiguously meet WP:N yet can be constrained to verifiable information are acceptable. The article will meet this standard once it's cleaned up. Orphic (talk) 06:04, 16 December 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.