Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cockpit Manager '14

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources only confirm it exists and do not show how the game is notable. -- McDoob  AU93  14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  NorthAmerica1000 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: it's extremely obscure and fails notability guidelines. And reading the text of the article, its purpose seems to be "look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!" mores than anything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'Obscure' and 'look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!'? As far as I know, this game is known as one of the only recent managerial F1 games. How do you prove a game's notability? (number of downloads? how many countries is it being distributed? please enlighten the fan base, so we can fix it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisHamilchamp (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that it's one of, or even the, 'only recent managerial F1 games'. You prove notability not through downloads or distribution, but through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. You need to demonstrate that the game has attracted the attention of the gaming press, basically. Blogs and fansites don't count: magazine reviews, blurbs at major gaming sites, and the like are what are needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 'You need to demonstrate that the game has attracted the attention of the gaming press, basically'. Thank you, that's what he should be going for. 'Obscure' and 'look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!' is plain stupid, as it is disrespectful with wiki contributors. I didn't create the article, I just think that the purpose of wikipedia is to be the internet encyclopedia. Pretty sure a lot of people read this article to get information about the game. References will be added, regarding notability.LewisHamilchamp (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs are download sites and do not meet the standard of RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:59, 27 September 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.