Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide to Play

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. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slide to Play

Slide to Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of notability. Of the thirty references, 26 are to Slide to Play's own web site; two are to the web site of gotoats, which is jointly set up by the publishers of Slide to Play and another business; the other two are pages at uk.gamespot.com, where Slide to Play is mentioned only in the "comments" section, which is effectively an open forum. (In addition, in one of those two pages, the mention of Slide to Play is introduced by the sentences "Hey everyone. My name's Steve Palley, and I'm the founder of Slide To Play.") That leaves no independent reliable sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article has been proposed for deletion and deleted in the past. The author of the article requested undeletion, saying (amongst other things) "It was an expired PROD, for having failed WP:WEB and WP:RS. I'd like to address both." However, they have made no attempt at all to address either. Their only edits in the 14 months since undeletion have been removing an external link to Slide to play's web site, and twice removing a {{Cleanup-spam}} tag. By no stretch of the imagination was that an attempt to address the reasons for deletion. More recently the article has been PRODDED again, but I declined the PROD because of the previous one. The reason given for the first PROD was "Fails WP:WEB Fails WP:RS", and for the second one "Not notable, every "source" links to the site being advertised here, and it's maintained by one of the site's editors." JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No reason to keep promotional articles on Apple fanboy cruft. TUAW can go too. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let's clean out Category:Macintosh websites while we're at it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Macintosh magazines too. Thanks for the hour-long PRODing binge! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. While a well written article, it only references itself and its affiliates. Sources don't seem to exist covering it. Although N4G reposts its articles, and Metacritic uses its reviews. Not sure if that is enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I think notable sites covering Apple products should be considered, but citing only your own pages and making them look like different sources is clearly not showing notability. W Nowicki (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (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.