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. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Empires[edit]

Astro Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third party sources. I've looked for references using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found nothing but trivial reviews, press releases, and forum/blog posts. The single third-party resource in the article (Best Browser Games of the Year 2010) is a "most popular" fan voting award on a site found to be specifically unreliable by WikiProject Video games, nothing that was given by legitimate video game journalists. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. This game does not yet appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable sources in the four years that the game has existed. Jørdan 08:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article already exists on the Portuguese Wikipedia, as it has been reviewed by a major portuguese gaming site (MyGames) and the game has received cover from two major portuguese media (Correio da Manhã and Observatório do Algarve). --85.240.43.160 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy my comments on the Correio da Manhã source from my Talk page: It's a trivial fluff piece and, "top-selling newspaper" or not, doesn't even appear to list the author. Plus, the article is more about the gamemaker than the game itself. What it does mention about the game is a 3-year old player count (active players or simple signup count? we don't know because the article lacks depth) and conjecture about the age of its players, which is odd because the character-creation page doesn't seem to ask that question. This appears to be exactly the type of journalism that we don't want in our articles.

As far as MyGames goes, it strikes me as a rather poor games site. There's no mention of editorial policies that I can find. Authors are listed by their username rather than a real name, and the author of the Astro Empires article appears to lack any kind of a journalist background. Beyond that, they appear to be offering some kind of contest/promotion with the game company, which makes them less than impartial.

I'm not sure how the notability policy works on the PT wiki, but on the EN wiki we need multiple sources that are significant (non-trivial) and reliable and independent of the subject. Sources that don't list an author (or give only a username), make up material to fill an article, and are tied in some way to the subject can't be used to write a neutral and reliable encyclopedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2011 (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.