Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voxatron

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. v/r - T P 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voxatron

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

No evidence of notability. Unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot really say it is unsourced, as there is a link to the website about it. Notability is not yet proved though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's be precise. If you count a link to a page on the publisher's web site selling the game as a source, then precisely the following facts about it are sourced: (1) it is a game; (2) presumably to someone who knows what "voxel" is, "Voxatron comes with a fancy voxel designer" is a source for "the graphics are voxel-based". Nothing else stated in the article is sourced, and even that has no independent source. We need independent sources in order to establish notability, and a link to a page selling it on the publisher's site selling it is useless for the purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources (like the game's website) are fine for confirming facts, but do absolutely nothing to establish that the subject is notable under our policies. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about what wikipedia's policy on such issues is, so feel free to correct me, but 150000 sales in less than two weeks is fairly big. Big enough to make it notable in my mind. An up to date figure can be found on the humble bundle page. I'd be happy to write a little for the page, though not while it's up for deletion on a claim of unnotability. Regards. 80.176.130.184 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be - sources that show those sales would be welcome, especially if they talk about the game itself rather than the bundle that happens to include it. I'll see if I can track some down this evening. If you have such sources, post'em here and we'll add them. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game is currently only available through the humble bundle, so all sales come from that. Although the bundle includes other games currently, I believe it was only voxatron for at least the first day, and voxatron is still the title game. 80.176.130.184 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It IS notable with 111 Google News results for 'Voxatron'. SalfEnergy 13:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, 111? I make it 11. And some of those 11 look to me more like press releases than impartial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look through the Google News results. They're about the Humble Voxatron Debut, not Voxatron itself. In fact, a number of them are about other games being added to the bundle. The only thing I found in those results covering Voxatron specifically is a "review" of the unfinished game from a site called zConnection. Reach Out to the Truth 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of what happens when people say "keep" purely on the basis of the number of Google hits, without checking their quality and relevance. (Quite apart, of course, from having misread the number of Google hits.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although most are infact about the bundle itself, they all somewhat mention Voxatron itself, even if it's just one sentence. SalfEnergy 00:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so, but passing one-sentence mentions in a handful of sources are not the kind of substantial coverage required for Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk)

Delete. Lacks reliable, substantial coverage in third party sources. Being included in a notable bundle, even giving its name to one, does not automatically make a game notable unless it results in coverage of the game itself. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2011 (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.