Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Swordfish.es

 __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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Swordfish.es


Would have qualified as A7 (web content) had this been an article. Either way, this isn't a notable game. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:A7 means that there is no evidence that the article subject is notable, but the whole point with the draft namespace is that the article is in a too early state to be in the article namespace. For example, evidence of notability might not yet have been provided. A7 for drafts is therefore inappropriate. Do you have evidence of the opposite, i.e. that the article subject is not notable? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source saying that it hasn't been covered in reliable sources? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . Essentially, searching for "Swordfish.es" results almost entirely in false positives. The article states that the game was only released this year, so it's not exactly surprising that sources for it are lacking. At best, this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Google is not a reliable source that reliable sources do not exist. Showing that reliable sources exist is not the same thing as showing that reliable sources do not exist. Do you have a reliable source saying that the author doesn't, for example, have reliable offline sources? The idea with the draft namespace is that pages in the namespace aren't ready yet. This means, for example, that the author might not yet have included the parts of the article which demonstrate notability, and we shouldn't delete pages before the author gets time to add this information. Can you prove that this draft never will be ready to be moved to the main namespace? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm all for writing articles and having a space for articles which aren't ready yet (I myself used to use userspace drafts when writing articles), but this game hasn't been covered by anything at all. Not even by reliable sources, there's pretty much nothing online about the game at all. The article admits that the game was only invented in 2015, so it's extremely unlikely that even offline sources exist. If this were an article, it would have been deleted as A7 quickly and we wouldn't be having this XfD. Being in the Draft namespace is not a free pass for keeping things on topics that aren't notable neough for the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I'm all for getting rid of nonsense but I'd say let the editor have at least a chance to work on it. Although it's been over a week and no evidence that it's notable is there. We can look at this in a few weeks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Trying to apply Notability standards to Draft namespace is incorrect., go back and read Drafts again as you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and applicability of the more strict policies in this namespace. I suggest having this enrolled in AFC to help the editor get this up to the point it could be accepted (in addition to having it on the 6 month CSD:G13 timer). Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 20 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.