Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tredoku


 * 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. Article deleted at 10:29, 22 September 2008 by Stifle. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tredoku

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

Contested prod. Notability issues. Daniel (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.amazon.com/Tredoku-easy-book-Mindome-Games/dp/9657471001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221651252&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.237.107 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article would benefit from an illustration, although as one might guess, this is inspired by Sudoku. Unlike sudoku, however, this isn't next to the crossword puzzle in any newspaper or magazine, and doesn't appear to exist outside of its "official" website.  As for the website, it has the words "coming soon" to go with a picture of the cover of a book that isn't available yet, but promises to have tredoku puzzles.  I don't see any indication that this is anything other than an attempt to inspire a sudoku-like fad.  I think most people will look at this and say, "too hard".  Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant advertising for a not yet properly launched game which probably will never catch on. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * do not Delete its real you can see the book is for sale in amazon

hello! we're sorry about the mess, but it takes some time to put everything online. we've just added a playable game and answer for anyone to play. we will have a blog with free games very soon - so please don't bury us before we even get started. give us a chance - thanks.
 * don't Delete

hello again! we've added illustrations like you've suggested and someone mentioned self promotion?? hey, everything nowadays is self promotion - half the articles in hebrew (my language) are about people who made a one-second appearance in an unimportant cable show. i don't understand how companies are listed in wiki right and left when they are the pure essence of self-promotion on the largest scale. please suggest what to do in our case - leave it? delete it and put it back up when we get some buzz? do we need to get an article written about us before we appear on wiki? what is your policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.165.211 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There appears to be a scarcity of independent sources to verify this material.  Wikipedia articles are not for self promotion or advertising.  H.G. 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur - delete Unless someone can find an third party review or two of this game it's never going to meet the notability criteria. And there are some pretty obvious COI issues here as well, though those could be fixed if the references were ever found. MadScot (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * don't Delete
 * Comment It's not so much "you need to get" an article written - that implies it's a non-third party article. Rather there needs to be something - or more likely several somethings - that demonstrate the subject of the article is "notable" - which basically means that the subject has indeed "generated buzz". Take a look at the notability rules for WP:TOYS - basically, you need reviews by fairly well known sources, feature articles likewise, or to be commended by some reasonably notable body. Right now I don't think you have those. What you could maybe do is userfy the page - basically, it would be a subpage of your user page - and then, if and when the requisite criteria are met, submit it back into the main pages. Even there, however, I think the rules are that it would have to stay to the standard of a draft article - you couldn't make it a promotional page, that's a big no-on. (caveat - I've no real idea is userfying is really allowed for this kind of case) MadScot (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability issues should be resolved first, then the article should be added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. Looks like a failure to digest Your first article.  I see no reason to believe this product has reached notability, and I see obvious WP:COI issues. Also possible repeat voting from one or more anon editors (just out of unfamiliarity with process) -Verdatum (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (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.