Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape from Zyzzlvaria


 * 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   redirect to Mystery Hunt.  MBisanz  talk 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Escape from Zyzzlvaria

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Game creators also doubt notability as seen on talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments on talk page, reproduced here for convenience. AJD (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)"It's really not clear to me that Escape from Zyzzlvaria is a notable game. It has never been commercially released—indeed, it was not intended to be commercially released; it was just written as a framework and adjunct to a set of metapuzzles in the MIT Mystery Hunt. It edges pretty close to 'things made up one day'—in fact, a game that is not commercially released and only distributed to a relatively small number of people is one of the specific examples of a topic unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. If it has legs beyond this month and achieves notability later; we can always have an article about it then; till then, whatever content here is important can be mentioned in the article on the Mystery Hunt. AJD (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * Okay, redirect; I agree with the points made below. AJD (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. I note that even on Boardgamegeek, a community of several hundred thousand hardcore board game enthusiasts, only two people claim to have owned this game and there are 3 recorded plays. The one and only comment gives it a 2 out of 10 and points out a fundamental logical flaw which almost certainly would render the game unable to be commercially released. So basically not notable now and unlikely to become so anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mystery Hunt, a perfectly appropriate target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm curious why PROD wouldn't have served for this. It seems highly likely to be uncontroversial. Why clog AfD with it? In any case, I've redirected as I suggested above in an attempt to save time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I find it funny that in the BoardGameGeek sources, the game appears as a cardboard box with a sticker on it. That is pretty obvious evidence that it is not formally published, and as such isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, sourcing or lack thereof is the relevant evidence for or against notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you know WP:N and/or WP:RS! Tavix (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that evidence of self-publication is not evidence against notability, and that we don't delete for those reasons as such. It's an important point because of the unfortunate frequency with which arguments of that form are brought out against well-sourced articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to argue? I agree with you, I was just making an additional comment so I didn't have to repeat what anyone else said. Tavix (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Phil. redirects are cheap and someone might come looking for this. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (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.