Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliceffekt: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:23, 27 September 2014

Aliceffekt

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

Delete The article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Therefore it should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popnrock (talk • contribs)

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG. 101.61.177.148 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Emilysantoss (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Unreliable Content, which is not up to the mark of Wikipedia criteria, so it should be deleted. (talk)

Comment This AfD was never listed in the AfD log, so I will add it to today's log even though the discussion was created more than 10 days ago. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the fact that the article already includes a review in CNET and a fairly long interview in Indiegames.com (as well as some more trivial coverage), it is very easy to find more coverage - more reviews in CNET and Jayisgames, and other interviews, too. I suspect the nominator was not aware of WP:BEFORE. The article is not at all promotionally written, but it could do with some more sources. I'll try to add some as soon as possible. --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : Being mentioned on CNET doesn't mean it should have automatically it's encyclopedic page. Author of this entry is obviously doing unambiguous advertising to an uncertain notability. Emilysantoss (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, being mentioned in a reliable source does not automatically confer notability, but the core of notability is significant coverage in several reliable sources, as discussed above. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is good but not substantial enough to create notability108.92.216.138 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Quebec|list of Quebec-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians|list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Delete''' Coverage is good but not substantial enough to create notability[[Special:Contributions/108.92.216.138|108.92.216.138]] ([[User talk:108.92.216.138|talk]]) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)