Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FloodSim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FloodSim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It most likely is, yeah. Still, the current article may be due for a re-write, but we shouldn't hold its origins against the topic. You have more experience than me with conflicts of interest, so do you know where we'd go to look for third-party sources? --Kizor 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I will dig around for sources quickly, and list below:
- Daily Mail reporting on the simulation. Contains comment from a Member of Parliment, and asserts the simulation is backed by the government.
- Daily Telegraph reporting on simulation. Includes brief assertion of games premise, comment from simulation designer, comment from Enviromental Minister.
- The Sun, brief comment including images of the simulation. Uses similar comment from Enviromental Minister as from above.
- Channel 4 News, reasserting quotations from the above sources.
There are a few other sources sitting about too, however they are much shorter and less informative versions of the above. However, I still think this gives notability. A rewrite could be good as there seem to be good claims to notability here. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if a total rewrite is needed due to the COI issue, feel free to drop a message on my talkpage. I would be happy to do it but unfortunately at the moment am a little busy IRL, so if others are able to rewrite thats good too. --Taelus (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that this game has recieved significant enough to meet the general notability guideline, I found more than Taelus has previously found. I've removed all the previous content that was unsuitable for the article, some more may need to be removed. COI or paid editing isn't a valid argument for deletion so I personally can't see why it should go. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. There's also significant coverage in an academic paper. SharkD Talk 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.