Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throne of Lies (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Throne of Lies (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't prove notability. Poorly referenced.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. Yet another promo article from a game developer. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Throne of Lies (video game) - How is this a promotion or copyright? I'm pulling this directly from a staff post in the forum, even with permission. The image and information can be be found [everywhere | http://presskit.to/tol], pending more cites (I spent 5 hours straight on this page; cut me some slack to add more resources..). Either way, this is NOT copyright infringement at all, and this public press kit is living proof. There is no over-information or marketing aspects - it's very milked down to core aspects, rules, and mechanics. This is no different than Town of Salem page, which is very related - if mine were to be removed, this should as well, along with any other page in such relative relation. Pending mention from Arisa Scott about the game to add to cites, a Unity Technologies developer and GDC speaker from Unity Technologies reinforcing the games existence. This game is new, but this genre is very few and if Town of Salem has a page, there is no reason this game should not have a page by directly relative comparisons. Let me know what's factually incorrect and I will change it -- although the same information is posted everywhere for public use Dylanh724 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the direct public mention from Arisa Scott, Unity Technologies developer and public speaker at Game Developers Conference 2016, using our game for their demo. Added Made with Unity page, where pages are strictly approved by Unity Technologies staff members that prove that game's existence. This game exists and if this page is taken down, so should Town of Salem by directly relative comparisons. There are only TWO mafia/werewolf party games on the entire internet - the Coke and Pepsi of this genre. I challenge you to find more - This should not be removed. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a Wikimedia creative commmons license to the boxart and added it back from there. I created this art and have permission and can give permission to reproduce to anyone that wants to use it. This is public material. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Yes, I am a part-creator of this game. However, I'm not here to advertise. It's a fact we exist - and that we're very few of a specific category. If you feel I'm advertising, tell me what I can do to make it not sound like it. You can remove any external link you'd like, although I only listed 2. I have slimmed down ALL information to not include any words that sound promotional rather than non-factual. I am working very hard to make it a neutral page. With your help I can achieve this - but deleting it is not the way, as this is a significant page. Dylanh724 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources.  Google results are basically just social media, forum posts, and self-published websites.  We would need multiple write-ups by professional journalists in magazines or websites that have editorial control, such as those listed at WP:VG/RS.  I don't see that.  A mention in a twitter post does not satisfy our notability requirements.  This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform for game developers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete., please see WP:GNG about the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Not every game out there has a Wikipedia article; there can be one if notability has been proven. You might also want to check WP:VG/MOS, a guideline on video game articles. Even if the article can stay, it is in dire need of some trimming to get the article up to Wikipedia's standards. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "No coverage" -- This isn't myspace 20 years ago -- Twitter, from official sources, is as much news as Google news. Throne of Lies was at GDC 2016 covered by Unity themselves at a booth and 3 lectures by Arisa Scott, official Unity Technologies staff member (pretty famous) - Town of Salem for example did not even make it there! Twitter was just the proof we were there, from an official spokes(wo)man. The Wiki has already trimmed out all adjectives to even hint at advertising. It's as plain jane as can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanh724 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No,, it's not. Primary sources aren't usable, so we can't use Unity, we need reliable sources. For reliable sources on video games, see WP:VG/RS. Websites like Kotaku, GameSpot or Polygon are useful. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "No,, it's not" -- community sites from fanpages? Fair enough. Primary sources invalid? Fair enough. But from official spokespeople and Unity, who is more prestigious than any of these sites (well, with the exception of some) and only approve legit games, where it's quite obvious it's not a forgerym then that makes no sense. Why is it any different? Also why can't Unity be used? Their engine made most the games ON that list you shared. Perhaps it should be added to that list since they *only* approve games that are actually games with proof. That's not better than a paid-off blogger? The logic just simply isn't there.Dylanh724 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I backed up the code. Remove if you believe it's unfactual and that Unity Technologies personally approving every game is a sham, and that their spokeswoman using our game at GDC2016 that has only legit games shown there is also a forgery, delete it if you must. Unbiased at this point, it's a fact that official spokespeople from any source is a quality reference, as is Made with Unity, which covers most every game you'll see on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanh724 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No,, again it's not. Your own opinion on Unity does not make it a reliable source. I could be wrong, but so far it seems to me you haven't actually understood Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. We need multiple, independent reliable sources. There's the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine: Throne of Lies, as a video game at least, isn't mentioned there once. We can't have an article on every game out there, and  Throne of Lies is no exception. You'll have to prove its notability somehow, and leave your own opinion out of it.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per 1337Gamer. Lack of reliable sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing particularly suggests its own article yet, it's not released yet! Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister   talk  01:00, 22 May 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.