Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIM Democracy


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

SIM Democracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The one reference and all but one of the external links are on web sites belonging to one or other of the organisations creating, publishing, and promoting the game, the one exception being a FaceBook page. This means that no independent sources at all are provided in the article. Thinking, however, that there might be suitable independent sources which the author of the article had not included, I did a Google search. The first page of Google hits contained their own sites again, facebook, this Wikipedia article, several youtube videos, a couple of twitter pages, an advertisement for a "workshop" which introduced the game to potential users of it, and a review on about.com. The character of about.com can perhaps best be illustrated by a couple of quotes from about.com's web pages about about.com itself: "About.com connects your brand to consumers at their moment of need", and "Real examples of how About.com helped brands achieve their marketing goals". Moving on to the next couple of pages of Google hits, I found some more of the same, together with blogs, website listing sites, etc. I did not find anything that could possibly be regarded as significant coverage in a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Aside from the about.com review, there is no coverage in reliable sources. I'd say the about.com review does lend itself towards establishing notability, though not strongly.  About.com does exercise enitorial control over articles; it';s just not clear how strong the editorial control is.  In my personal experience in reading about.com, I've observed that they often have a mess of overlapping articles and information duplication that would indicate the writers are given a lot of leeway in what they do. In any event, that one article is not going to establish notability on its own.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even though about.com review establish a moderate notability, no other reliable source talks about this board game. It lacks third-party coverage. I think it is too early for an article about this game. WP:TOOSOON Eduemoni↑talk↓  02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (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.