Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPET

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IPET

IPET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Poorly-researched article about non-notable game. Prod was removed after inserting first-party references. Alexius08 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply I would think that first-party references would be the best, since they would give the most accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev149 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondary sources are needed as they are what constitute notability, the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. While primary sources such as those cited provide reliable information, they do not show how the subject is significant in a real-world context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now I can't find any RS for this. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reply There are two online sources, unfortunately some information must be viewed in the game. I can put this information online, however, if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev149 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find any notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable game, no independent sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable for reasons stated above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It exists. 69.165.153.245 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) For clarity's sake, I'm the formerly blocked user above. Chzz has helped me reform my ways, and after learning about reliable sources policy, delete this. North North-West (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just because something exists does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. It should meet our notability guideline, and comply with our reliable sources policy and verifiability policy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also see WP:VAND. The only thing that will happen with your disruptive edits is your blocking, as already shown. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: IP blocked for vandalism, and I think it's likely that he's a sock of someone. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It exists, but there's nothing else to say about it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as it now stands -- not only is there no evidence given of notability, there's no evidence given of interestingness.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – existence is not enough. Reliable secondary sources need to exist in order to establish any importance of this subject. This has not been shown. There is also a clear conflict of interest with the article's creator. MuZemike 17:14, 11 June 2009 (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.