Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (video game)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Player 03 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (contributions to the article)

Run (video game)

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

This game does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. At least, I'm unaware of any reliable source that has given the game any significant coverage.

Additionally, the copywriter responsible for writing the bulk of this article was not payed for her work. Therefore, she didn't give permission for Wikipedia to display it. Player 03 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All your other arguments notwithstanding, editing Wikipedia is by definition giving Wikipedia permission to display one's contributions. It's right at the bottom of the editing window: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but Bridget Pringle is the person who wrote the article, and someone else posted it to Wikipedia. Pringle never agreed to release her work under CC BY-SA.

It's like if I posted an article-length excerpt from a Harry Potter novel. I'm not J.K. Rowling, nor an agent of hers. No matter what that little blurb says, that work is still copyrighted, and Wikipedia doesn't have the copyright holder's permission to host it. Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no indication of notability. Question to the nominator; ~~Are you, in fact, the developer of the game? If so, then~~ I commend your objectivity in this case. Also, I was about to say the same thing as PMC. There's really no legal ground to stand on should this AfD fail and the editor who created the article demand its deletion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am, and thank you. I mentioned this on the article's talk page, but maybe I should have put it here too. Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good job. I played it and it was quite addictive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If only that was enough to make it notable... Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on notability. It is important to note, however, that the creator of the article released the text to the Wikimedia Foundation when they pressed "save changes" so they have absolutely no say in what happens to it now. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: Bridget Pringle was the creator of the article. Someone else pressed "save changes." Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this really matters. If someone writes copy for WP and doesn't familiarize themselves with the WP:TOS beforehand, that's really not a good defense. This is arguing a technicality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Pringle was definitely aware that it was for Wikipedia. Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say delete earlier, for notability reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems that the uploader may have hired a different writer after deciding that Bridget Pringle's work was too expensive. This other writer, Holden Reid, claims to have been paid for his work. It seems unlikely that copyright was going to be an issue, but if this is true, it definitely won't be. Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: the question is "delete" v "merge" in my opinion, and as there is no obvious merge target, it has to be deleted as not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2017 (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.