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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MiGen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of primary sources, does not meet GNG, and has already had a "delete in 7 days if left" tag remain in place (set by a different wikipedian) long enough for a no questions asked deletion, but was removed by article creator with no improvements to article. Kai445 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems like one of many in and endless list of prospective Kickstarter projects, probably trying to cash in on Ouya's popularity... Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - despite no secondary sources, I think the article is OK. It already has enough information to be decent. Also, the company behind MiGen haven't really released news on the press, therefore there are not many secondary sources. When it releases, maybe we'll see many come... --Gaming&Computing (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's 'no news on the press' how can it be notable? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said, we can wait until the release when it finally will come to the press. Then, the secondary sources would arrive here and it's all okay. Plus, I don't know where else to put information about MiGen once this article would be deleted. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works here on Wikipedia. If there are no third party, reliable sources to establish notability, then an article is to be deleted, and if/when it were ever to become notable, be created then. At this point, it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Gaming&Computing is both the article creator, and the remover of the PROD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to say that. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. You were supposed to say that yourself, but you didn't. See WP:AFDFORMAT. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the inability to identify reliable, secondary material to substantiate the article. Mephistophelian (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if/when they've gotten some media attention. (And ideally after any Kickstarter campaign is complete.) APL (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt seem to have enough reliable external coverage. If it gets some coverage after its release it can easily be created again. RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll primary sources hence does not meet WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - They give updates on progress every couple of days via there Facebook and Webpage. If they have gone this far lets see where they will go.WP:GNG [[User:|BrianG52]] (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC

An IP that signs messages in a dubious fashion. Excellent. -Kai445 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2012 (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.