Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Noise: A Tale of Horror

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. WP:N and the other notability pages are official guidelines, and we can't just ignore them and let a non-notable page persist. This isn't being fussy; this is upholding community standards. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and the Wikipedia community would welcome this article's re-creation if the game becomes notable. —Darkwind (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise: A Tale of Horror

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

Non-notable indie game (equivalent to a self-published book) with no meaningful coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 30 March 2013 (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) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a press release that was reprinted by GamaSutra, but PR isn't usable as a RS regardless of where it's posted. The game had an trivial mention in this Eurogamer article, but that's a trivial mention and it doesn't give notability. This is ultimately a non-notable indie game. I have no issue with it being userfied, but the overall article needs a lot of work to become more neutral and encyclopedic. The review section of the article is a huge example of this, as the section seems to be written with a bit of a slant with phrases such as "The editor of the review was excited yet retain some professionalism" and "despite all of this he also says". I know it's common to paraphrase in review sections, but this seemed to have been written by someone who wanted to represent the game as good as possible despite the review having some negative things to say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material about a non-notable indie game. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the promotinal material is a problem and noteability is a huge issue for me, i can not convince you i just can not do that, i am only 1 guy doing this article i am lucky if i do get help at all. its easy to make a page but jesus christ is there a part in the article i did not mess up in?--Indienews (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply - don't beat up on yourself, Indie: we've all messed up on articles and other things here. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good: do the best you can, seek help and criticism, and don't be discouraged by trivial setbacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a small article on the game at Indiegames.com and a review at ScrewAttack. That's the best I could come up with. Don't give up, Indienews. There are a lot of indie game topics that still need coverage! If you'd like a quick set of pointers about how to write an article that will survive AfD, please leave me a note on my talk page. I'd like to help if I can. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a change in the staff section that lost two of its staff members, so i'm going to guess that beta tester is another promotional word or that it was removed since it lacked noteability?? --Indienews (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the notability/significance to justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: come on can we at least give this a chance and not have random users getting fussy over noteability, i'm going to say this once or twice this article is a work in progress meaning its far from finished so i will happily defend this article till im dead or gone --Indienews (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (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.