Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigrid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 26 March 2009 (Closing debate, result was no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 02:06, 26 March 2009 by MBisanz (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was no consensus)
- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Navigrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Isolate (puzzle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete unreferenced articles about non-notable puzzles created under WP:COI by inventor (User:Vexuspd). -- samj inout 01:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it'd need more than one paper and one puzzle-specific book to meet notability criteria. Multiple papers, included in books from multiple publishers, or something like that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One paper and one puzzle-specific book for a game invented in 2006 would be enough for me. Article is factual and encyclopedic, I see no COI of concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With criteria for inclusion that low we would have probably 1,000 other puzzle types invented up by people who hoped to get free advertising here. Please take a look at what our notability requirements actually are before commenting on AFDs. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware of the recent megabytes of discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation - it's a guideline, not a "requirement", and not policy; and opinion is divided, to say the least. Please point out to me the "free advertising" or just some promotion or canvassing - I think you grossly exaggerate the importance of having one out of two million Wikipedia articles, especially when the products have allready hit mainstream media, and in the case of Isolate, is published daily in one of the largest newspapers in the UK (The Daily Mail). Take also a look at WP:COI, it's WP:NPOV that is the main concern, not the COI per se, and I don't se NPOV problems in this article, but again, please point them out to me. Undisclosed COI is a serious potential problem, but again this is not the case with this editor, who reveals his interests. The diff you provide is an absolutely fair question, the editor merely asks, how to prove that e.g. Isolate is published daily, truly legit. What was your reply?. I wouldn't know how to lift this burden of proof, other than buy the paper myself. Regarding the 1000 puzzles, no problem, if they are mainstream media, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Lastly, please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With criteria for inclusion that low we would have probably 1,000 other puzzle types invented up by people who hoped to get free advertising here. Please take a look at what our notability requirements actually are before commenting on AFDs. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These games have been published in multiple notable magazines/papers. I agree that inline citations should be added to these two articles, but this is an editorial issue (add/edit/improve), not an administrative (deletion) issue. Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.