Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Farm Seaside


 * 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. joe deckertalk 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Family Farm Seaside

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on non-notable game created by an account linked to the developers. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, because it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/CSD 100% promotional -Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Created by a user with the same name as the studio who developed the game? What a coincidence... Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Refs provided are listings in various app stores, which are not RS sources and do not indicate notability. A search turned up no RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the same reason I PROD'ed it: no notability, no reliable sources outside of store listings. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Implicit keep (as a WP:DEPROD) by  with the rationale: "Evidence of notability:,, . ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)"
 * 2, freyashawkgames.blogspot.com, is a personal blog and thus not RS. feedyourchickens.com has a 'play the game now' link which suggests it is not entirely independent, has anonymous authorship (piece is by 'gamer'), and no editorial policy, thus not RS. apppicker.com is borderline; even if it were a solid source, 1 ref is not sufficient to establish notability, and the other two fall well short of the reliable source policies.Dialectric (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. None of those links come even close to meeting the criteria at WP:SOURCES AusLondonder (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar  20:41, 23 March 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.