Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliceffekt

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]

Some more sources added. It is cause for some concern that all the people who have !voted "delete" are very inexperienced (in terms of their number of edits), and in a couple of cases known to be paid editors. The AfD process is, of course, open for all editors to participate, but I'm getting the feeling that there is canvassing going on somewhere, for some purpose I can't quite understand. In any case there is an embarrassment of sources out there, so WP:GNG is clearly met. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the flighty attitudes of editors overall about WHAT exactly creates notability, I'm not surprised about this debate. Better articles have been put into AFD for less...Chastized (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete While I agree with Bonadea's assessment of the curious case of the potential canvassing on this thread, I am still inclined to agree with the majority; there are a lot of sources (even on the page as it stands), but most of them simply verify that Aliceffekt worked on one project or another. Others are interviews (which border on being primary sources), and a (very) small minority deal with Aliceffekt in detail as a person. IF the article can be improved with new secondary sources and substantially more body added I am happy to change my opinion, but as it currently stands I do not think Aliceffekt meets Wiki's notability criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (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.