Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xisk

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xisk

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

This game has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so this fails the general notability guideline. Prod was contested, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable. Hobartimus (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedt delete web content with no claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold I will resolve these issues and beef up this article to Wikipedia standards. I just wanted to create the stub for now so that there was not a naked broken link on the Risk (clone) page - which is currently undergoing peer review - and all of my time and attention is there at the moment. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policies on WP:COI first. A lot of your edits since March have in one way or the other been in promotion of Xisk, a software project you appear to have created yourself. APL (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; regardless of future article coverage, this is not notable. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone). andy (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obviously. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:39, 17 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) • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WikiProject Video Games reliable sources search turns up 0 hits. --Teancum (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Doesn't even assert notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity entry. Also Category: Risk (clone) should be deleted too. 2005 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability. Perhaps doesn't have any. APL (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software with no sourceable information indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete: If Mr. Bornert wants to resolve the issue that there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of his own creation, he should feel free to do it ... and come back to write a Wikipedia article when that is done, not before. Much better yet, he should wait until a neutral third party does so. Ravenswing 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 20 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.