Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Within a Deep Forest

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. Andre (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Within a Deep Forest

Non-notable independent game, does not pass WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - And again, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although Google returned some results, those are blogspots, not-notable. Cheers -- Imoeng 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Changed vote. I'm tired of arguing over a crappy article. Please disregard the IP address addition of the PC Gamer reference. It makes no sense why a December edition is being released in October.
  • It may not make sense but it is acurate. (I made the edit, but forgot to log in) Issue 168 (Page 126 in case anyone has a copy and can confirm) of UK PC Gamer is labled as being the December issue and was released on October 26th. The issue released on November 23rd (169) will most likely be labled 'Christmas.' Its daft, but thats the way it is. --JamesGlover 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CherryT 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • If you admit that it fails WP:SOFTWARE, then your other claims are irrelevant. It must pass that notability guideline or it should be deleted. Andre (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, you are the writer and main contributor of the article. Are you Nicklas Nygren or Sara Sandberg? Andre (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The game's defender admits it fails WP:Software which is enough for deletion. The rest of his argument, that he 'enjoyed it' is irrelevant; I enjoy the bar down the street but I'm not creating an article for it. And also, Cherry, please refrain from ad hominem attacks about people being 'law nerds.' The AfD are here expressly to have Wikipedia guidelines applied to them, without exception. There's no more reason to grant an exception in this case than in any other. --The Way 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Charlesknight 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Only two articles link here. That's not a lot of redlinks, certainly not enough to suggest that we need an article. Cherry, we don't have to prove the article is non-notable, you have to prove it's notable. There's really no such thing as 'proof' of non-notability, just the absence of verifiable sources demonstrating notability. If we can't find such sources, we consider the article non-notable. -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — google has 820 hits, that ain't bad; it seems like it is kind of notable to me... JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's like hardly anything -- and also, Google hits aren't part of WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • JoeSmack: Please read the above statements. They are mainly blogs, which can be published by anyone.CherryT 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say the concept of the article is a keep, but it was clearly written by a crazed fanboy and I'd rather have no article than the current one. But the game is notable in my experience. It's commonly cited to me as one of the greatest freeware games of all time, despite the fact it's only a few months (?) old. -- 70.251.0.41

so what if it is cited to you? What can you offer in the way of sources? --Charlesknight 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I, CherryT Authorize Deletion of this article. The deletion is posted. This article may be deleted unless there is no longer a consensus on the deletion of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CherryT (talk • contribs) .

You don't have the power to authorize anything, but we'll take that as a delete vote. Andre (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be changed then... an author should have the power to request speedy deletion if he/she feels that the copy he/she created doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That's like a webhost saying that I can't delete HTML pages on my webserver, or that an author can't tell his publisher to stop distributing his books.

CherryT 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When you add a page to Wikipedia, you release your prose under the GFDL and therefore it ceases being "your" copy, so your analogies are false. There is, however, this rule: Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. In this case that rule clearly does not apply because you didn't mistakenly create the article. Andre (talk) 20:26, 31 October 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.