Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ONEXENO


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ONEXENO

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article on a non notable card game that extends into a game guide. No evidence offered and none available on searching of where the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources exists. Hence, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Author has WP:COI as developer of game Nuttah (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  14:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Favonian (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN. There are sources that demonstrate V, but the two reviews (boardgamenews and BoardGameGeeek)are utterly unremarkable. Most damning is the recent press release: cached here stating in part "After little more than one year, Penrose Press has sold out of the first ONEXENO  edition of 2,000 copies." which seems to be entirely non-notable. It asserts a magazine-specific award I've never heard of, but overall, the whole web presence for the game smells of carefully crafted marketing, rather than any real notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Save as RL Just because NL never heard of the magazine seems irrelevant ) and utterly unremarkable. Frankly, selling 2,000 copies of a new card game during its first year of publication is rather remarkable. BTW there is a list of reviews at (http://www.onexeno.org/links.php) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.216.176 (talk)
 * Weak Delete Only the boardgamenews review seems to be reliable and I've been unable to find anything else. (BTW, the reviews being unmarkable isn't a reason to delete).  If there are other reviews that aren't self-published I'd likely change to a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. As with Hobit, if there are more independent reviews, I'd change my !vote to keep. Claritas § 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Only one reliable source with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (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.