Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ars Regendi

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. Keeper | 76 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi

An article about a new browser-based games. There aren't enough reliable sources to meet inclusion guidelines or to write an objective article. I searched for reviews (I aim for at least two) or major awards and couldn't find any that weren't user-generated, reprints of press releases, or trivial mentions. Wafulz (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom on lack of WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there will come official sources within the next weeks. But, it's hard to understand that you want third party sources (didn't see a browser-based game here which has some) for easily verifiable facts. I am not talking about a strange thing hidden in my dwelling room - it's online and everybody can take a look at it. --Malone70 (talk) 23 January 2008

An article on wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources to pass the notability guideline, to cover information like reception, what reviewers thought of it. Without that information it can't be a balanced article and just repeats the information that readers could glean directly from Ars Regendi's homepage. The unreferenced browser games you saw could be candidates for deletion themselves, or perhaps the sources are out there but need to be cited. Which games are you referring to? Someone another 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 11:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wafulz, also had a look for sources and came up blank, notability not established. Someone another 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is entirely possible that this game could become notable, but it does not apper to be notable as supported by independant sources right now. Slavlin (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry someanother, I don't like to squeal other game developers ;) Those are big games, played by hundred-thousands of players, who could confirm all information given in the articles. As 3000 hitherto players could confirm the informations given by me. Whatever, when there are some 'official' press articles about Ars Regendi, can I publish the article again without bureaucracy? By the way, there where until now 2.000 visitors on Ars Regendi from the Wikipedia, each one stayed average eleven minutes, that may be a hint, that the wiki-users find that link quite useful. Regards, Marc --Malone70 (talk) 25 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by bereaucracy you mean an AFD like this then yes, most likely. Notability is the hurdle to clear, once that's done it's a case of hammering away at an article till it conforms to WP's policies and guidelines, but that can be done when the article is in mainspace. Someone another 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all you are going to have is a press release, that would not be sufficient: that is still content coming from the game's producer. What you should wait for are independent reviews written up in reliable sources (i.e. not posted by fans, but written by paid authors). Once that happens (if it happens), notability would be clear. (As for the other games, they probably shouldn't be deleted if they're played by 100Ks of players, but their articles do need those sources.) And, most importantly, you shouldn't publish the article if you're involved with the company: see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. Instead, wait for someone else to post it. Mango juice^talk 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Someone another, etc. Mango juice^talk 16:13, 30 January 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.