Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Car Racing 3D


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dream Car Racing 3D

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Incubate. This article should not be deleted:Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Steam, the primary source contains many secondary sources (55) each verified by a minimum of a $5 steam purchase, 40 of which also purchased the $15 game Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The game was greenlit through steam, meaning that both, the developer had to spend $100 to enter his game, and that well over 1,000 accounts had to nominate the game for publication Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This game is extensively covered on youtube in a manner that would take a vast resource pool and many years to fabricate Sphyloid (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The "55 secondary sources" you're referring to on the Steam Store page are user reviews. They are not reliable sources and do not contribute to the game's notability (WP:USERG, WP:VG/USERREVIEW). A game being on Steam or greenlit for release on Steam is not a a valid criteria for a game's notability. YouTube videos from random people aren't reliable sources and don't contribute to notability either. This game has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Few games pass the Steam green-light process, it needed a substantial and thus notable, community to do so
 * Games with less notability, which also lack secondary sources are on Wikipedia
 * I will start working on a collaborative paper about this game with my peers, which would be a valid secondary source
 * "Life is too short to spend cutting budding flowers." William FitzPatrick Sphyloid (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing the greenlight process does not make a game notable. Wikipedia has a criteria for notablity, WP:GNG. I suggest you actually read it rather than making up arguments to keep the article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep the article either in this case. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This article does not violate any of the five pillars of Wikipedia, therefore this is a valid argument. I'll just save the article, get the sources over time, then re-post under a different user name + IP.Sphyloid (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that Curses 'N Chaos, to which I personally sources, meets our guideline for notability. If you do not agree, you are free to start your own articles for deletion nomination. Be aware that such an action could be considered to be pointed. And regarding a new user name and IP, that would constitute sockpuppetry, which is verboten on Wikipedia. Such an action is disruptive and will be met with harsh consequences for your editing life here. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:VG/RS search indicates that this topic is not notable (because it lacks reliable secondary independent and continuing coverage from sources). Delete. --Izno (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You must be joking that the "Trusted video game sources" in that source are legitimate, especially in a day and age where even science direct needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if they are, the game was discussed here .Sphyloid (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One source on a website basically announcing the game isn't the kind of coverage we expect. The rest of your comment will fall on deaf ears here because it has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Izno (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A little more listening might be in order. Try these links: This article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had few meaningful hits (more than listings) in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It doesn't have enough depth of coverage in reliable sources to write meaningfully on the topic, and there is no indication that the game is somehow notable despite this lack of coverage. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar  19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incubate. This is the first game to offer true sandbox editing of vehicles, at a resolution of 20 centimeters. The game leverages softbody physics concepts originally developed in Beamng.drive, however unlike Beamng.drive and "Sandbox" vehicle editor games Dream Car Racing 3D not only includes it's own editor (Unlike beamng.drive), but it allows you to edit the exact frame geometry in a three dimensional space instead of lego-building with pre-made parts like scrap mechanic and machinecraft. The developer intends to extend the editor into aviation, and numerarios types of land vehicles such as tanks and motorcycles.Sphyloid (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources that help satisfy the WP:GNG have been provided, nor do they seem likely to exist. Sergecross73   msg me  19:34, 19 November 2016 (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.