Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliceffekt

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.

This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. See CSD A1.

If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:Db-nocontext-notice|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliceffekt|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Ianjoy8311 (contribs | logs) at 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (10 years ago)[reply]

(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]