Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HExistentialism


 * 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. Aside from the weak keep by mike, the other two intial keeps did not hold up to the scrutiny of the eight deletes Nja 247 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

HExistentialism

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

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Non-notable video game. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete. Game is noteable.  Please allow time for corrects, and a better Wikipedia staff explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All seems good now. Please remove delete notice.  Thanks for your help brah!  Go with christ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that last comment a joke by Ericmaas? Vandalism? Brian Reading (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think he's toying with us. Seems like he's having trouble with the Mediawiki software. Obvious first-time user. This is actually a comment I moved to its proper position. Originally, it was at the top of this page, which made it appear, to someone looking at the log, that it had to do with Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride instead of HExistentialism. I just had some trouble making him understand that, and I'm not sure he understands even now. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think this process is being severely complicated by that as well. Oh well, whatever has to be done... Brian Reading (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This game is non-notable as far as I can tell. I can't find any reliable sources for coverage and verifiability. Brian Reading (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are notable reviews from notable sites:
 * http://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/07/03/hexistentialism-iphoneipod-touch-game-review/
 * http://www.appscout.com/2009/06/hexistentialism_offers_mind-st.php
 * http://www.randomn3ss.com/iphone-app-review-hexistentialism/
 * This is verifiable yes?
 * Sorry, but those aren't reliable sources. Brian Reading (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How are they not reliable, they verify that the game exists, and they discuss the game. how is that not a good source?  Please answer in a clear complete manner otherwise I am stuck spinning in cirlces.
 * Please read WP:RS, and it should be apparent. If for some reason, it's still not, we can get into that. Brian Reading (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets get into it. I am still not seeing your point.
 * http://siteanalytics.compete.com/randomn3ss.com+appscout.com+the-gadgeteer.com/
 * I'm not quite sure what that link is for, however I will retract my statement that NONE of those are reliable sources, as AppScout seems to be a part of Ziff Davis Media. The others appear to be self-published sources.  Unfortunately, one mention in a reliable source still doesn't seem to warrant an article.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Brian Reading (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This Article should remain on Wikipedia. I just started editing it, and added the review sources to the reference page when I noticed this discussion was going on. The person who put this article up for deletion did not allowed enough time for the community of proactive users to add to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)  — Dani zee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you'll read the discussion going on here, you'll see that simply putting random review links in the article doesn't make it okay to keep. All sources used must be reliable.  So far, I've only see one reliable source used, and it's just not enough to warrant an entire article. Brian Reading (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Simple google search shows the Gadgeteer Article being picked up by various other websites http://www.google.com/search?q=gadgeteer+hExistentialism&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gCy&start=10&sa=N —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these guys find the-gadgeteer relevant:
 * http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=link:www.the-gadgeteer.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmaas (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a non-self published review. This site has 9 contributors. http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/10/quick-look-hexistentialism/#more-32632
 * There is no editorial oversight there. Your presented standards for reliability don't seem to match with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Brian Reading (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @192  · 03:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable video game. No reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 08:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. Current article is unsalvageably biased anyway. • Anakin (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:SOAP. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:SOAP. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit. Article should have reviews used as a references, not promotion.  Remove the art and style bits, they are biased.  Source the developments parts or do not use them. Article is salvageable, but needs work.  Might want to fix that image as well.  Also as to the previous comments about notable content most of those sites are relevant tech blogs.  Gear Diary has an Editor, the app scout is ZD blog, and the-gadgeteer gets talked about on many tech blogs, like shinny shinny.  Fix these issues read it a loud a few times, you will see what is up.  I hope that helps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.157.46.97 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please read WP:RS. The key is that being "talked about on many tech blogs" does not qualify for reliability. It's just not what the standards for Wikipedia are. Brian Reading (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is self-promotion. Dani zee is presumably Dani Zuniga, one of the developers, and Ericmaas is associated with the developers (see http://twitter.com/ericmaas/status/1886478495). 24.23.157.146 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I "Dani Zee" am one of developers, which I have admitted to the admins. In fact I have been waiting for this article to organically be written. Once I saw it was, I edited (which I have stopped doing) for the the sake of providing accuracy and references. I will not edit the article anymore but I will make a case for this article to stay up on wikipedia. You can decide whether or not to take my statements into account when making the decision keep the article on wikipedia.
 * Twitter is not evidence of association. Ericmaas has is not an employee or contractor of Ayumusoft. My name (Dani) is not even spelled right on the tweet. Ericmaas is following hExistentialim but hExistentialim is not following Ericmaas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and cleanup – As noted in the article and above, there looks like a couple of sources that are reliable (at least, from doing a quick spot check, two of them have editorial staffs that should provide some reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and hence can establish some notability. While the tone of the article can improve to be more encyclopedic, I don't think it's that promotional at all to warrant deletion. That can easily be cleaned up to fix that. MuZemike 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, having an editorial staff doesn't necessarily warrant reliability of sources. It's important to analyze the staff, and make the decision whether they are trustworthy and experienced enough to provide reliability in information.  I don't believe that staff has the credentials to be treated as such.  The only legitimate source in my opinion still seems to be AppScout. Brian Reading (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This looks pretty non-notable. No significant coverage in multiple WP:RS's. I don't like the COI aspect either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - of the references provided, I'm dismissing them all as self-published sources except for App Scout. However, this remaining source is not exactly significant coverage. Perhaps enough to verify the game in a "list of iPhone games" article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 23 July 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.