Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Leung (video game) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Leung (video game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not strike me as notable. Editors are invited to look through the history and study the long, long list of external links--I don't see how any of those, or any of the hits found by Google, are to reliable sources. Then again, perhaps the standards for reliable sources are different. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the by, I have blocked the creator--that is clearly a spam/username account. They are, of course, welcome, to start an account that does not seem to represent their company. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete no evidence this is any more notable now than when it was last AFDed, which wasn't even a year ago. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Covered by GameAxis.com, GameSetWatch.com, RPGFan.com, GamersHell.com, Gamer.nl, and ImpulseGamer.com (probably RS). On the plus side, the author donated a bunch of cool images to the Commons. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean he posted a number of copyrighted images which we have to delete because we have no evidence of permission? Yoenit (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh. If it really was the author, I bet he'd be willing to prove it and donate the images. But I guess we don't know if it was the author or not. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of the external links that Drmies deleted because he deemed them unreliable. They may not be notable sites, but they are definitely legitimate - look at how many other games they have written about. Indiegames.com article Impulsegamer Review ZTGameDomain Review Indie Game Reviewer Review Default Prime Review Green Man Gaming Review Desura Community Ratings PC Games And Reviews Review Rampant Games Review RPGFan Review Review (Dutch) Indie Superstar Interview Games of Experience Interview kollisionsabfrage Interview (German) By the way, newbie here. I am just editing the discussion to add my comment in. Is that the correct way? Does the timestamp get added in automatically?
 * Keep – Article is notable per several sources listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To save people time, all of the above that are reliable I already enumerated in my previous listing of sources. The new additions are either self-pub or unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Take Indie Superstar's interview for example, it's definitely a legitimate source since it writes for so many other games, so it should be real and thus reliable. Now then, when you called it self-published, did you mean that the site might have published a made-up interview that the game creators submitted? Diculous (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's take that. This page suggests that they're not really that picky or that independent/critical. That "it writes for so many other games", I'm not quite sure what that means, but it's hardly an argument for editorial quality or independence. And of course the site is published by a game developer, Dejobaan Games--all of this together suggests that they are not a reliable source by our standards--see WP:RS. No one is suggesting that they make their stuff up--just that they're not a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia, which has to rely on reliable sources. This is not a gamer site or a blog. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The "other sources" were excluded because they don't seem to be RS to determine whether or not the subject matter is legitimate. However, given that the small number of RS have proven the subject matter to be legitimate, we should move on and include the previously excluded sources to determine its notability - which make it a significantly stronger case. Diculous (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (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.