Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0x10c


 * 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 keep. This is a snow keep situation: the subject has plenty of reliable, secondary sources already within the article. The article's talk page is the proper venue to discuss the merits of individual sources or a merge, but there is no potential for outright deletion here. czar 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

0x10c

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Article is for a game that was cancelled before release. This game does not exist and most likely never will. Kirschkuchen (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Regardless of the game being cancelled, it garnered lots of coverage in secondary reliable sources and passes WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per ferret. Game is notable despite having been cancelled. Sam Walton (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - invalid deletion rationale. Cancelled games can have articles if they meet the WP:GNG by being covered in many third party reliable sources, much like this game. Sergecross73   msg me  19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep. Sourced or not its not particularly notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I mean, we're taking the same stance, so I'm not arguing with you...but can you expand on that a bit? I don't really understand how that description describes how you arrived at a "weak keep" response, and Admin commonly discount rationales that don't make sense or cite any policy... Sergecross73   msg me  19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Nomination is too erroneous. Nominator's rationale indicates that neither they have seen the sources present in the article nor have read the relevant deletion and notability policies before coming here.  Jim  Car  ter  20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice, getting bitey. I have indeed checked the sources in the article. There is exactly one article article about the game in there I would call indepth. The rest are announcements (about title or cancellation), articles about the company or the creator, a few social media pages, and a few links to the website of the company. Not what I would see as indepth coverage. Kirschkuchen (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Miles away from being "bitey", my !vote is based on WP:SK and WP:COMMONSENSE. As it still seems clear that you haven't carefully read WP:SIGCOV. Cheers,  Jim Car ter  21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P. S. There are sources available other than the sources listed on the article. Note that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.  Jim Car ter  21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then show me those. I looked. The only other thing that I found was a Guardian article mentioning why the game was cancelled, and even that focused more on the creator. The project is one of hundreds of cancelled video-game projects, and only got any standard preview coverage at all because it was made by the same people as Minecraft. I just don't see any notability. Kirschkuchen (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's over 43,000 hits in WP:VG project's custom reliable source Google search. PC Gamer, Polygon, Rock Paper Scissors, US Gamer, Engadget, Gamesradar, PCMag, Kotaku (Situational source), etc, all covered the cancellation itself, and followed up with further news about the fan plans to continue trying to build the game... There's a huge amount of sourcing for the game, and whether or not people only paid attention because of Notch/Minecraft is irrelevant.. The sources ultimately wrote about 0x10c. That is almost like trying to argue Diablo III isn't notable because it was only covered by sources due to Blizzard making it. -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.