Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost (computer game)

{{afdanons}}

:{{la|Lost (computer game)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable viral marketing "game"-- only a single news item from a source (The Guardian, UK) to be found that even talks about the site. Beyond that, no verifiable info outside of the site itself, making the sum of the article Original research. Variations of the article have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Lost.eu deleted 8 times previously], when it was under the title "Lost.eu". Finally, the URL for the site itself is currently [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&diff=534440&oldid=534439#Lost_.eu_.22game.22 blacklisted on Wikimedia] due to spamming by its participants. --Leflyman^Talk 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well you win, I disagree with this deletion but that may have more to do with the time and effort spent working on this article then the amount of notability this game has. I wish I could find away to change your minds but that is a really good argument agaist the article. The only thing I have a problem with is, holding the fact that the url is on the black list against the article, I would think if such strong measures had to be taken against the site then it has to say something about the games notability, just not anywhere close enough to save it from deletion I fear. Delete if you must, I'll stop contesting, at least for now if the game gets much larger then I would like to revisit this issue.Vantar 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:*Once the site has multiple, non-trivial published works, as per WP:WEB, then certainly it may be revisited.--Leflyman^Talk 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - being deleted eight times by seven different admins speaks volumes about the "notability" of this site. Added {{tl|afdanons}} preemptively due to subject. MER-C 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of outside reliable coverage -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as nn. On a more general note: say what you want about ARGs like ILB but at least they didn't borderline encourage institutionalized spamming. That's why I feel it's not really unfair to use the fact that the site is blacklisted against the article, even if the two aspects (notability and some of the more obnoxious type of spam) are unrelated (ie. this isn't just a case of 'guilty by assocation'). Notorious maybe, but that doesn't establish sufficient notability, in my opinion. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I think a lot of people are getting the wrong impression about this as soon as they hear that the goal is to get as many people to sign up as possible. While that may be the case, this Wikipedia article is not here for that. It is a neutral article about a real, popular online game. As for it being non-notable, I think the figure of 230,000 users definately makes it notable. A google search also turns up 171,000 results (although of course most of these are just people trying to get sign-ups). I do think that this game will continue to grow at an extremely rapid pace, and as it approaches its goal of 7 million players, it will definitely become notable (yes, I know about WP:CRYSTAL -- no need to throw it at me) and covered by many sources. I don't have a figure right now for how fast the game is growing, but I'm looking for one and if I find it I'll put it here. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, The Guardian article says it is getting 2,500 new subscribers per day, a number that will probably increase as more people join, and will probably quickly make this game quite notable. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been reported in the Guardian, a noteworthy British paper. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,2033707,00.html http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,2033707,00.html]samwaltz 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:*A single news item does not constitute notability, under any criteria. See WP:WEB, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. -Leflyman^Talk 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::*According to Merriam Websters (m-w.com), multiple is "the product of a quantity by an integer". One is, in fact, the product of 1*1, and is, as such, a multiple. I will, in any case, look for a few more instances. samwaltz 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no credible evidence that this site is considered notable other than by its own members. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable, independent, multiple secondary sources featuring non-trivial coverage of this subject. Until such can be found, sorry. -- Ekjon Lok 01:37, 29 April 2007 (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.