Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLFFVII


 * 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) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

SLFFVII

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game per WP:NVG; no significant coverage other than self-published sources. Drm310 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the topic of the page is noteworthy as per WP:NVG; the page now lists multiple independant sources which have blogged/discussed the game in question, which has existed for close to a decade, with a significant history in Second Life as 1 of only 2 Second Life roleplays to exist for that long.. FloydGilmour16 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Notability is established through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Blogs and other sites with user-submitted content are self-published sources and generally not considered reliable sources. One of them (Engadget) appears to have editorial control, but the others don't. SLFFVII's own website is a valid primary source but won't count toward establishing notablity. --Drm310 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking through WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I found a piece by Destructoid (essentially the same as Engadget's) and nothing else. Does not meet notability, could be mentioned in one sentence at Final_Fantasy_VII. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable fan video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. Engadget and Destructoid is not in-depth and covet only a narrow aspect. Other sources in the article are not reliable or in-depth. The available sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as none of the listed coverage suggests convincingly for the applicable video games notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:11, 1 March 2016 (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.