Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notpron 2

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 Redirect to online puzzle in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:16Z

[edit] Notpron

Notpron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I understand the original AFD was closed because a sock started it with no real valid reasoning, however I do beleive the AFD should have been allowed to stay the course. This article does not pass WP:V, WP:WEB, and has no Reliable sources or actually any at all. Brian (How am I doing?) 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I want to point out, I have no edit history with Weffriddles or Notpron and had not heard of either of them before these AFDs. If WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:V can be met, and the article cleaned up, I would change my stance.
Comment I agree with the above. It's not a very good article, but the subject matter itself is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Collard 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the subject matter is indeed notable. I'm hoping someone comes along during the discussion and finds some sources... --- RockMFR 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps we should also consider the possibility that this article could meet WP:GAMES, since this the subject is an online riddle game. Sancho McCann 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well the problem is, RockMFR, that in order to keep, the article must be sourced NOW, not some time in the future, to survive this AFD. I know you believe the subject is notable, but HOW is it notable? What active acknowledged wikipedia notability guidelines does it pass? For the proposed WP:GAME (which honestly does not hold much weight right now being proposed and not active)...
The game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game:

I've looked for and found nothing on google or dogpile.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Before we get into the exceptions, I can not find any of the listed items that are about this site.

Media reprints or rewrites of press releases, advertising for the game, published walkthroughs/guides for the game, brief magazine mentions, brief television mentions, brief mentions for change in release date mentions, etc.

I can't even find this for the website

The game has been the subject of at least one non-trivial published work outside the industry.

Again, can't find anything outside of the web (since that is what the 'industry' would be) on this site.

The game has won an award from a notable award-giving body independent of the game creators, sponsors, and publishers.

Can't find anything that suggests it does nor does the website list any.

The game has been made or adapted into another media (TV, motion picture, novel, stage show, etc..) that meets the Wikipedia's notability requirements of that media. It is recommended, however, that the articles on the same subject be listed under the same name space, unless size limits come into play.

Again, no it has not.

If anyone can find multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game, I'll be all for keep. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There was really no point in allowing the previous one to be overrun by meatpuppets, but after investigation, it doesn't meet WP:V. I wish it did, though, it's a cool game. -Amarkov blahedits 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It might be a fun game, but no cites to show its notability. Edison 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RWR8189 (talk • contribs)
  • Clear delete no trace of anything that establishes notability; besides, it has all signs of self promotion. -- Egil 12:19, 26 December 2006 (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.