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. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run Wild: Zombies[edit]

Run Wild: Zombies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable proposed game by non notable amateur company nothing on Google except this article. It looks like pure advertising to me? Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... What am I advertising??? I am not making money out of anything!! Barrovian (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I declined the speedy deletion on the article, but I suggested an AfD might be appropriate. I can't find any evidence of notability through coverage in reliable sources, and it probably violates WP:CRYSTAL as a game that hasn't even been created yet (and may never be created). -- Atama頭 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was only announced last Monday, don't be jealous. Barrovian (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a real game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrovian (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The announcement of a game is not enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The game needs to meet notability guidelines, including significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As of now the article relies on an external link from a primary source and predicts details about the game. —Ost (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Simply existing is not enough to support the creation an article.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It should be kept, I believe they are releasing the first screenshot next week. Barrovian (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we need reliable sources independent of the subject covering the game to meet notability guidelines. Releasing a screen shot would not be enough in this case since it would not be independent coverage. If the game gets more attention afterwards an article may be apporpiate but it is too soon at this point--76.66.182.228 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no secondary sources presented in the article, and zero hits from the custom videogame reliable source Google search. Fails verification and notability. Marasmusine (talk) 07:43, 7 May 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.