Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavilion City

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pavilion City

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

Incomplete, unreleased non-commercial/amateur video game with little evidence of notability or verifiability beyond its own website and chatter on various forums related to Grand Theft Auto and the like. Also nominating:

• Pliston

As another non-notable Gamemaker project by the same author, and prequel to the above game. Suspect both of these articles are self promotional, and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of substantial, reliable third-party sources on either of them. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Argument

Pliston can be found all over the internet. Not just on various forums. It has found its way onto games websites (most of them in Europe) and game galleries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowcloud (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Popularity or widespread availability is not the issue here - it's quite normal for a piece of software to appear for download on lots of websites. The problem is the lack of reliable third-party sources reviewing the game, detailing its production, etc. A Google search for Pliston game[1] returns 71 unique results, almost all of them forum posts (not considered reliable sources), and the relevent results peter out after the third page or so of the results. "Pavilion City" game[2] returns even fewer relevant results - five on the first page (four forum posts and the Wikipedia article) and nothing on later pages. Considering the number and scope of gaming websites on the internet, that's a sign of relatively low notability for any game (compare with, say Cave Story, another free independent game, which has tens of thousands of Google hits, numerous reviews and interviews on websites not connected with its creator, etc). If you can provide some reliable sources documenting these games (not just sites offering it for download or brief reviews), then you have a case for keeping the articles. As these articles stand, the lack of verifiability is the biggest problem, as well as possible conflict of interest issues. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see any evidence that it meets notability requirements and the author hasn't provided any. Mark Grant 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree. The article does not provide sources from an outside perspective, and the article did not mention any previews from dominant gaming magazines and the like. Hence it is not notable.--Kylohk 20:33, 1 May 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.