Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechQuest (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MechQuest

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

Seemingly non-notable video game. Arguably its notability should be discussed here, rather than edit warred over the redirect to the company, which itself may be deleted soon. Pcap ping 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the article was recreated in August 2008, after the previous AfD closed as delete a year earlier. Pcap ping 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source: I see that there is "live view" (a little shorter than a full review) [1] on IGN. Pcap ping 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to company's article if it is kept. Game has no significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. The IGN Live View helps, but is not sufficient on its own. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i know its not a real argument but, 150 views in a month. So what really makes it non.noteable if around 150 people each month are searching/viewing this article in a month. Is it really sooo important that every videogame article which isnt about a game which sold x million times or which didnt get sequels gets deleted? GBK2010 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in that this is not an argument. Popularity is not notability - and neither are sales figures or having a sequel. Have a look at the general notability guideline to see the kind of thing we need to see. Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well interesting... There isn't any significant coverage from reliable third party publications on this one. Maybe later. JBsupreme (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt again. Was deleted on notability and verifiability grounds in previous afd (and the GNG was in more or less its modern form at that time); current article is almost completely unsourced, and what is sourced is to the game's own website. I note that the speedy deletion request for the most recent repost was declined as "wasn't deleted at AfD", which is erroneous at best. Should not have been unsalted without going through DRV. —Korath (Talk) 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the IGN preview was published well after that first AfD. Pcap ping 07:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources to support the notability; just another in the Artix Entertainment walled garden.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 7 February 2010 (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.