Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GameOrchtad

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 13:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:GameOrchtad


Nothing in the WP:VG/S reliable source search to indicate notability, and not likely ever to have notability. Izno (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an unreasonable draft, WP:N doesn't apply to draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero Google hits to even confirm this is a real thing, and that's even using the regular Google search, not the reliable sources one. I would probably vote keep if this subject's existence was confirmed, but if this game development company hasn't even set up a website in the year since this draft was created, this is a no-hope draft. WP:GNG doesn't apply to draftspace, but the April 2016 RfC found wide consensus that no-hope drafts shouldn't be retained indefinitely. ~ RobTalk 05:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Top of the ghits: http://www.indiedb.com/company/gameorchard It clearly exists.  I don't claim it looks good, but I do claim to see plausible notability.  Maybe at the low end of likelihood.  The page view stats indicate no actual WEBHOST abuse.  Investigating "possible notability" is a very tough job, and is simply not worth the work to determine.  Notability/Noticeboard existed for that purpose and failed for that reason.  As mentioned elsewhere, if it is a no-hoper draft, why not blank&tag with Non-starter draft, and delete these things in groups (agree, they are not for retaining indefinitely).  Deleting them one-by-one is terribly inefficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was tricked by the misspelled title of "GameOrchtad". If this draft is kept, it should be moved to the appropriate draft title, at least. Their game has 18,000 views and is in the top 300 out of 35,000+ games on IndieDB, a major indie game site. None of that suggests notability, but in my eyes, it suggests there could eventually be notability. That's my bar of choice for drafts, so this is a keep from me. Thanks for cluing me in on my typo mistake, . ~ RobTalk 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the different name, also by plugging it into the WP:VG/S custom search. No results again. The custom search is culled from a list of sites that WikiProject Video games has already found to be reliable. Most video game publishing, if a topic is going to be notable, will at least be findable via this online search (books on video games are usually reserved to the more notable titles, so it's not worth it to even consider Google Books much less Google News, which has false positives and unreliable sources). Indie gaming rarely crosses the bar for notability. Smokey, the articles I nominated today were very selectively picked from a set of very old articles noted at WT:VG, so if it makes you feel better, know that I was neither simply nominating old drafts nor being indiscriminate in my selection of MFDd drafts. --Izno (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the mainspace article took an A7 at GameOrchard. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Izno, it does make me feel better if you say something about how you discriminated this draft from others that you did not nominate. Also, I would appreciate an explanation of what a WP:VG/S custom search is, and why its use is important.  I consider "not likely ever to have notability" a weak statement.  "not likely" leaves a big margin of possibility.  However, if you were to say "A thorough search of all usual sources reveals that this is not notable", I would be receptive to that.  The problem with deleting per notability tests is that testing notability is onerous, and many assert "non-notable" on a gut feel.  Mentioning that the nomination of a video game draft is done following an open review process at WikiProject_Video_games will instill confidence and trust in the nomination.  If I understand you correctly, I agree to support your nomination to delete.  A WikiProject assessing drafts within their scope of interest is to be applauded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, WP:VG put together a list of reliable, sometimes reliable, and never reliable sources, most of which are specific to the video game domain. The custom search linked above only searches the reliable sources for content about video games. The video game industry is one of the industries where any possibility of notability is indicated by a topic's online presence (exception: games published before the World Wide Web existed), so this search is basically a good triage for "is this topic notable?" If there are no results, it's almost always the case the article would not be notable. So from this point of view, "not likely to be notable" and "a thorough search were made of the usual sources" are basically the same statement. I only MFDd the articles after they were brought to attention at the WikiProject after subjecting them to the VG/S search. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beyond mere existence, it created one game in May 2015 and three weeks later this single-sentence draft was born. It's been a year with no sources and no further sources. While I understand the idea of tagging it as a non-starter, I presume there's a point where deletion of this page is intended to be discussed so I don't see what need is there to wait. Also note that while WP:N doesn't apply, there needs to be some potential for notability to be established in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally agree with User:Ricky81682. Sure, WP:N doesn't apply, but it does show that this page will never can become a mainspace article. No need to keep indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 29 June 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.