Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junkbot


 * 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 after good faith efforts to find independent sources came up short. - Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Junkbot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable browser based game. Jamesx12345 20:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Did not find multiple independent sources of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet general notability standards. Some sources considered:
 * (PDF of full text; good RS for info, but author Zimmerman worked on the game, so this is not independent coverage for notability purposes).
 * (Brief one-paragraph review)
 * (Incidental; more about iterative design in game creation, citing Junkbot's development as an anecdotal example)
 * Keep The sources listed above are actually pretty good.  Yes, the first one is by the author, but in a collection he was invited to contribute to.  That's at least as good as an interview (where a person talks about themselves, but for notability purposes the fact that someone independent did the interview is what's relevant).  The other sources are reasonably good, if not great.  This looks more notable than many games that just have reviews in the standard places. Nice job hunting down sources (even if I disagree with the conclusion)! Hobit (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:N says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." I was a iffy on on counting Zimmerman's piece toward notability, but that excerpt lead me to reject it; the paper is still Zimmerman's work, regardless of where it's published. I really scoured for other sources, and the subject is discussed in one-person newsletters, one-person resource sites, graduate coursework, and it's linked (sometimes with a one-sentence description) on a lot of school, library, and educational resource websites (e.g. this "Worthy Web Sites" article from Early Childhood Today), but none of those are significant RS coverage. Agyle (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your objection and I think it's reasonable. I just feel that when invited to write for an edited collection like this, it is clear that the editor thinks the work is notable and worthly of coverage.  That's (much of) the point of WP:N. Not saying your read on this is "wrong", merely that I disagree.  Hopefully a few others will chime in and we'll see if we can get a consensus on the question. Again, I'm really impressed with your ability to find sources like that.  I'd looked quickly and missed most. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 11 June 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.
 * 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.