Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Sorcery


 * 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. czar 04:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Open Sorcery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A game that has won a single small conference award and has had no significant coverage in reliable sources. Also looks like it was written by a very likely COI or undisclosed paid editor. Either way, seems WP:TOOSOON. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure I'd agree it's WP:TOOSOON - it's just straight-up non-notable. There is nothing much else to add given that it lacks any significant coverage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I didn't really notice the date. I was also trying to soften the blow with the words "Too Soon" (in case the original editor was the developer and saw the discussion), since the Wiki concept of notability doesn't always make sense to new editors. But you're right, that essay is not applicable here. I struck it above. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This will never be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the game released in 2016. I was unable to find anything that would count as a significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, besides a WP:PRIMARY blog post by the developer on Gamasutra. The article doesn't help either (besides the IndieCade nomination, which by itself is not enough): interviews, unreliable sources (Gamebits), store listings, an award on a non-notable conference. A clear failure of WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  weak keep , I may be biased as I know many of the folks involved in "Meaningful Play" (all for different reasons weirdly), but yeah, an award for that carries some weight.  Gamers with jobs probably counts as a RS. The rest probably don't but it's a close call (professional-grade podcasts etc.).  Hobit (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A website with no staff listed like Gamers with Jobs is no way a WP:RS, and will never be. Considering you haven't really proven how Meaningful Play is notable (besides admitting you are biased in that regard), I stand strongly about my vote. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I'll go with IAR keep.  This is, IMO, a perfectly reasonable article to have.  It's an award-winning innovative game.  But yeah, I justify that by the GNG, so I'm left with IAR. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR only applies when unnecessary rules are impeding proper function of the encyclopedia. This is not one of those times, the rules appear to be working as intended, and that argument simply falls into WP:INTERESTING.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable indepth significant coverage. No notable awards. This is not a TOOSOON, as it's years past now, it's simply not notable. Essentially, per Jovanmilic97. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (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.