- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty obvious spam that I tagged under CSD G11, but was despeedied by an IP who didn't give any proper reasoning - the article is pretty clearly promotional. Fails GNG, as there is no RS coverage, and there is no reliable source for the claim that this was a finalist for the award - and I'm not even seeing how such a small-scale award would generate any notability at all, unless it was won. The creator isn't notable, there are no reliable sources in the article (or even any inline references). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't see anything "promotional" there. It's factual and does no harm. Notability can always be disputed, but it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles, not of course because of any particular intrinsic merit but as some sort of inside joke, as can be seen by the many spoofs listed here. Mewulwe ( talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see it as promotional either, but there is no evidence either in the article or anywhere else that I can see of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the "keep" reasons advanced by Mewulwe carries any weight under Wikipedia policies & guidelines. For "it's factual" see WP:ITEXISTS, for "does no harm" see WP:NOHARM, and "it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles", justified by a link to a list in a wiki, comes nowhere near the requirement for substantial coverage in reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Insufficiently cogent to be promotional. However, I can see no merit here and it fails any reasonable test of notability. Velella Velella Talk 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, as pointed out above. Text adventures were already an obscure hobby by the mid 90's following FTL's release of Dungeon Master in 1989. Dolescum ( talk) 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with prior opinions that this is not promotional, but I failed to find any notability for this game. I find no articles or sources referring to it or signifying notability. Scarlettail ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I just couldn't find anything out there for this game. I found a brief mention by PC Gamer, but it'd be considered a trivial source at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not promotional, but not at all notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: as others have said, I don't see this as "promotional" at all, and certainly not a G11 candidate. Unless someone can rouse BoingBoing or another RS to quickly do a piece on its legacy to get some cultural memory transferred into the "reliable source" record, it looks like a deletion is inevitable, which is a shame, because it does appear to have had some influence in its genre, judging from a cursory Googling. Could I request that the closing admin userfy this to here if it's deleted? 28bytes ( talk) 14:14, 11 March 2014 (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.
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty obvious spam that I tagged under CSD G11, but was despeedied by an IP who didn't give any proper reasoning - the article is pretty clearly promotional. Fails GNG, as there is no RS coverage, and there is no reliable source for the claim that this was a finalist for the award - and I'm not even seeing how such a small-scale award would generate any notability at all, unless it was won. The creator isn't notable, there are no reliable sources in the article (or even any inline references). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't see anything "promotional" there. It's factual and does no harm. Notability can always be disputed, but it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles, not of course because of any particular intrinsic merit but as some sort of inside joke, as can be seen by the many spoofs listed here. Mewulwe ( talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see it as promotional either, but there is no evidence either in the article or anywhere else that I can see of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the "keep" reasons advanced by Mewulwe carries any weight under Wikipedia policies & guidelines. For "it's factual" see WP:ITEXISTS, for "does no harm" see WP:NOHARM, and "it's fairly well known in interactive fiction circles", justified by a link to a list in a wiki, comes nowhere near the requirement for substantial coverage in reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Insufficiently cogent to be promotional. However, I can see no merit here and it fails any reasonable test of notability. Velella Velella Talk 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, as pointed out above. Text adventures were already an obscure hobby by the mid 90's following FTL's release of Dungeon Master in 1989. Dolescum ( talk) 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with prior opinions that this is not promotional, but I failed to find any notability for this game. I find no articles or sources referring to it or signifying notability. Scarlettail ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I just couldn't find anything out there for this game. I found a brief mention by PC Gamer, but it'd be considered a trivial source at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not promotional, but not at all notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: as others have said, I don't see this as "promotional" at all, and certainly not a G11 candidate. Unless someone can rouse BoingBoing or another RS to quickly do a piece on its legacy to get some cultural memory transferred into the "reliable source" record, it looks like a deletion is inevitable, which is a shame, because it does appear to have had some influence in its genre, judging from a cursory Googling. Could I request that the closing admin userfy this to here if it's deleted? 28bytes ( talk) 14:14, 11 March 2014 (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.