Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Questverse


 * 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   Speedy Delete. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Questverse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable game which fails the general notability guideline and other such basic thresholds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Googling for "Questverse" in Google Books, News, and News archives turned up absolutely nothing. Based on his/her username, the creator of the article appears to be a representative of the developer, and is probably trying to use Wikipedia to get the word out before the game is covered in reliable sources. CtP (t • c) 00:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. we constantly get  a stream  of articles about  video  games supposedly  under developemnt. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not  a newsreel or a platform  for promoting  possiblyup coming  products. The article can be re-created when the product  has been released. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FUTURE and above. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON, no such product. --Seduisant (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are any of you looking here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lunartsbr? It depends, if by notable it means only a google news entry and a released full game then yes, you do not need to discuss anymore as I accept the deletion. If the deletion reason is because of lack of media and at least a bit of coverage, take a look at the above link and do a 'usual google search'. Does not exist seems ambiguous to me, if it means completely void/inexistent; then it is invalid; if it means not finished, but with content present on the web, then yes, I agree with that also for the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunartsbr (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other links were added at my user talk above, they will just be usefull if the reason for deletion is "lack of content and evidence of project existence"; otherwise you can proceed with the deletion. Lunartsbr (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if relevant, search at regular google image search, instead of free images above. Looking forward to someone explaining better to me(instead of documentation links) a couple of things. I shall then no more interfere with the deletion, hope it isn't too much to ask.
 * Delete - I agree with the above. The key words are "being developed" - Wikipedia is not a place to advertize. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - So it is exactly 'being developed'? I guess I fully understand now the issue then. Thanks for clarifiying Jrcrin001.Lunartsbr (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2012 (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.