Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevergrind

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevergrind

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The current sources are all primary (the official website and an interview without commentary), unreliable (Indie Game Mag and the previously-mentioned Cliqist, neither of which have any reputation as reliable sources), crowd-funded and user-submitted (IndieDB and Kickstarter), and portal sites (Crazy Games and Kongregate). I am unable to find any sources vetted by WikiProject Video games and searches using both the WPVG reliable and situational custom Google searches returned "No Results". A normal Google search finds the typical social media, forums, and spam sites. Note that the article creator, User:Maelfyn, is the self-described "developer of Nevergrind and founder of Neverworks Games". (I have also warned him about WP:COI. If the article survives AfD, it will have to be rewritten to remove POV and spammy language.) Ironically, the game looks fun—probably something I'd play if I weren't elbow deep in several other games—but that isn't currently part of our notability requirements. Woodroar (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Woodroar. I couldn't find any additional sources, and certainly not any that were reliable and third-party. It's worth noting that Indie Game Mag's review lists at the bottom a call for developers to submit their games for possible feature, meaning that their process of selecting games to review is not particularly selective. Either way, a single review from a non-mainstream site does not establish notability. ~ Rob^Talk 01:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not a great source at all. User:Czar actually started a discussion about IGM over a year ago with some solid arguments against. Woodroar (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this game is ultimately notable enough for an article. It looks like it exists... and that's about it. If I thought that there would be a chance of this surviving AfD I'd re-write it, but I can't find anything that would show notability. I don't see where any of the typical gaming RS outlets have given this any media attention - not even a routine notification that the game is in production or that they held a Kickstarter campaign. (Although it's not for lack of trying - the game's creator does seem to be trying hard to drum up interest.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete this article. Sorry for wasting your time. Thank you. Maelfyn (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to others who may be inclined to nominate for speedy deletion under G7, this is probably not eligible because an IP editor made substantial edits to the article. ~ Rob^Talk 13:42, 7 July 2015 (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.