Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimGirls

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. Clear consensus to delete as lacking the necessary reliable, independent sources for an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimGirls

obviously unencyclopediac, reads like an ad, nonnoteable Teh Rote (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note it's currently a copyvio of the creator's MySpace, but I'm not digging through the history to find a clean version. StarM 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN--Macrowiz (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: no independent or reliable sources found to verify notability.--Macrowiz (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this version makes some wild assertions. If they can be proven, the game is notable for being the framework of the games that came later, but seeing as this is one big fanfic game, I doubt this is the case. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work to say the least, but it appears to be a popular part of Newgrounds which is a notable website. Merge with Newgrounds may be more appropriate, but outright deletion isn't warranted here. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Newgrounds is a host site for the game rather than an independent reference source. Are there any independent sources for this? --Macrowiz (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it's truly the first (or first English) dating sim on the web, then it is notable because of that. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But why are "dating sims on the web" notable enough for this one to also be notable? Nifboy (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the SimGirls content on newsgrounds appears to be submitted by the game's author [1] [2] and forum chatter; remaining web search hits are the usual online hosts. Thus the subject fails the general notability guideline requirement of independence (WP:GNG), not to mention that the article is borderline Speedy G11. Marasmusine (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent or verifiable sources and fails WP:NN Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources and so this fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is most certainly not a copy of anything. I know this because I wrote a fair portion of it myself, along with the rest of the Simgirls team. Besides this, any "wild asertions" you may be refering to (I assume you are speaking of the number of plays (which is clearly visible on Newgrounds) or the fact that it was one of the first western online dating sims (we do not claim that it is either the first western nor the first online, nor even the first that fits both, simply one of the forerunners). This too is fairly evident. If you do not believe it, look at a few of the more preeminent ones and check the release dates. Such a thing is clearly outside of the scope of the article, and thus was not mentioned. I see no requirement for third-party references when nothing involving third parties is mentioned. I would appreciate it if you could give more specific mentions of any possible violations the team has affected so that we may remedy them. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKlr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to reword the entire article in a such a way as to remove as much casualness as possible. In specific, I targeted 2nd person pronouns, various unnecessarily positive adjectives, and toned down any objectionable materials as best as possible. It is my sincere hope that this measure will clear up the issues. If you have any more complaints, please let me or another member of the team know.CerealKlr (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage of the game. In plain English: video games need reviews from unaffiliated sources whose video game coverage is held in high esteem. WP isn't a video game database, articles need more than information on how the game plays and this information needs to come from vetted sources because wikipedia contributors are not themselves 'reliable sources', nor are website comments from average joes (anyone can leave comments). It's always advisable that those with a conflict of interest (like developers) allow other contributors to handle articles on their creations. Hope this helps to clarify things CerealKlr. Someone another 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said the article consists almost entirely of the development history and future plans rather than gameplay (which is useful information), but it all needs framing with outside opinions on the project itself. Take a look at the video game project's list of Good Articles for examples of reception sections and how these sources are used in articles. Someone another 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, thank you for the pointers. I can certainly fix the lack of gameplay information, but as you said yourself, that in and of itself apparently isn't sufficient. I suppose that means that our best bet is simply to hold tight until the 5.0 release, which ought to garner enough attention to merit a decent 3rd part review from an esteemed source, unless you have any better suggestions. Thank you again for trying to work with me on this matter. Also, in response to the various "nonnotable comments" if 42.5 million plus plays isn't considered notable, i'm extremely confused as to what is. Note that this is only the number that I can guarantee from Newgrounds, the game is also listed on dozens of other flash game sites. Finally, at Macrowiz's comment about "wild assertions." I followed the link you gave. As you yourself noted, that was an old version, not written by anyone on the team. Citing that as a reason for deletion would be similar to attempting to delete the Evolution page because religious fanatics flame it at random. CerealKlr (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (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.