Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunelleschi: Age of Architects


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Brunelleschi: Age of Architects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-significant/notable web game that does not fit any CSD criteria. It was very recently released also. Furthermore, the page was created by the game's creator, demonstrating that it is not (probably) notable. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Well... a page editor having a COI doesn't necessarily mean that their topic isn't notable. There have been times where an editor with a COI will write about something that is notable. That said, this game just isn't notable at this point in time. There hasn't been any coverage about it in any reliable sources, as the only stuff I can find was either a press release (which is considered to be WP:PRIMARY and thus unusable for notability) or posted in a place that isn't considered to be a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The game was Originally released in 2010, and was reviewed and rated independently by players on BBGsite at that time. This independent review seems to qualify as a valid Secondary Source as per the guidelines. There is an additional review on this site, though the quality of the actual review site is low enough that it wouldn't warrant linking/citing in an article. Additionally, Artwork has been posted relating to this game title for 5+ years on DeviantART, as exhibited here. The Facebook page for the game has over 2,000 'fans', for whatever that's worth. Additionally, though I am not sure this speaks directly to the notability of Brunelleschi: Age of Architects, the creators of the game have been mentioned for their previous work 'Tweetlord' in several secondary sources including a published book, and these articles.

I hope that this article can be brought up to community standards, and if it cannot be I understand that deletion will be necessary to maintain the high quality of Wikipedia's content. Many thanks to MrScorch6200 for being polite and helpful during this process. --AesopMatt (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some problems with the sourcing, though. Not every review and website is really usable as a reliable source. this site looks to be the type where anyone can review. Even if it's not, it's still not the type that counts as a RS. As far as fanart or any fan activity goes, that can only be counted towards notability if the game's popularity and fan activity has received coverage, which it hasn't. Now when it comes to any coverage for other activities by the game's creators, that doesn't translate into notability for the game currently up for discussion. (WP:NOTINHERITED) In other words, they could have created another game that is overwhelmingly notable, but that doesn't translate into notability for this game. Now the problem with BBG Site as a RS is that we can't verify any of the editorial process that went into the review. It might be a popular site, but we still have to verify that the reviews are edited and done in a way that would make it a reliable source. There are a lot of sites that have paid reviews, use random user reviews, or just don't have an editorial board. Otherwise it's just one of many, many review sites out there that might look official but still don't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AesopMatt, looks like a well-produced and fun game, but the general notability guidelines set a much higher threshold than what you list to warrant an article in Wikipedia. There are even more trivial articles in Wikipedia, but they probably wouldn't stand up to a challenge. Commercial products tend to attract more attention, as people are more sensitive to promotional use (or abuse) of Wikipedia...Wikipedia shouldn't be on a PR checklist of how to launch a new product. If it catches on, and there's a book about the game and articles about it in the NY Times or at least major game-related sources (see WP:VG/RS), then it should have an article here at that time, and shouldn't have a problem meeting notability standards. ––Agyle (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources.  Deviant Art, Facebook, Twitter, and other sites of that ilk really don't count for anything.  Try submitting it to a site whitelisted on WP:VG/RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to meet general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG), or for web content (WP:WEB) or the in-progress Notability (published works), and isn't mentioned in any general reliable sources or reliable game-related sources that I can see. ––Agyle (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2014 (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.