Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maw (video game)


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Maw (video game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to meet WP:N, also, those of you arguing that there are other xbox live games that have pages, please view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I shall cross those bridges when I find them. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:N, as outlined above(this is currently under construction as I gather the pages):

I am striking the above so that it can still be viewed, as a reasoning for the responses below that referenced them, however, this AFD now only concerns the root article.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of the four articles I'm actually seeing, keep 1942 and Aces of the Galaxy, and delete the other two. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, poor nomination method. These articles aren't related in any way, so multi-nomming them in one discussion is not appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The articles are related, they're all Xbox Live Arcade games. Would you suggest I nominate them all under separate AFDs with the same rational?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Though I disagree that they fail to meet WP:N, most of them have sufficient media coverage to satisfy WP:N, and notability is not temporary. At any rate if you insist on nominating them as failing WP:N then notability should be discussed for each individual article, not for all of them at the same time. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, could you please cite the ones which do not fail WP:N, because, as far as I can see, they all do. A game magazine is not proof of notability.  It isn't some great feat to get reviewed by a magazine that reviews games.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't want to add a vote either way yet as I'm not familiar with the numerous rules and regulations, but does having won an award at PAX and being a finalist for the IGF change its notability at all? In its detriment, I've yet to see any significant interviews with the dev team, but it is seemingly early days with having only just been released.  Sargant (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is very easily found with a websearch, reviews on EuroGamer, Team Xbox, videogamer.com, Gamespot, Kotaku. It's also in issue 43 of the official UK XBox magazine (half page review on page 90). What exactly is the issue here? Whatever it is, it's not notability. Someoneanother 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At least 34,212 have downloaded the game, and thousands of others know of it.  It's also notable for being the first original game by Twisted Pixel Games--60.228.44.216 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - None of those things have anything to do with notability.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That the game "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is everything to do with notability, yet you persist. What exactly are you asking for? Someoneanother 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My most recent reply was not to you, but to the IP. Amount of downloads, or amount of users, or players, does not indicate notability.  But all that aside, I withdraw this, as when I nominated this article, it had no such sources, and no claim of notability.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:45, 27 January 2009 (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.