Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 18 April 2007

Star Wars Combine

Fails web notability guidelines, reliable sources guidelines -- It is not notable and doesn't cite sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be added. Even links to some of the claimed academic articles would at least lead me to say provisional keep. Mister.Manticore 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. It's an online game, by the way. I wonder why the nominator didn't mention that. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:25Z
Delete. I see notability, but without valid reliable sources I've gotta vote delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add sources - I am/was a developer for the game, I can confirm it and "source" it all myself, I can try and find online sources for some of the information as well though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, you can't assert sources through personal knowledge. While that may allow you to know things, the rest of Wikipedia can't rely on you being who you say you are. Now you can certainly use that knowledge to know where to look for sources, in which case I'll change my opinion, so good luck! Mister.Manticore 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unofficial fangame - if someone presents some decent sources, I would reconsider. --Fredrick day 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm a MMORPG player of an older game myself, but without any independent sources listed, let alone verifiable ones, this fails WP:V and WP:WEB with flying colors. RGTraynor 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced -- Whpq 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sources (which it now has) is a fair article. --St.daniel ^talk 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources listed are self-referential, two of which are from the game's own website. Are there any reliable, independent, third-party, published sources? RGTraynor 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Such as...Not many sites do reviews of Online games much Browser Based games. WillSWC 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all others, especially RGT. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the mere fact that it is a Star Wars video game makes it notable, it fails notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because its a unofficial game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Give me 5 and I'll work on it and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. WillSWC 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep''' With sources (which it now has) is a fair article. --[[User:St.daniel|<font color="teal">''St.daniel''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:St.daniel|<font color="purple">talk</font>]]</sup> 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 :*'''Comment:''' The sources listed are self-referential, two of which are from the game's own website.  Are there any ''reliable, independent, third-party, published'' sources?  [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
+::*'''Comment:''' Such as...Not many sites do reviews of Online games much Browser Based games. [[User:WillSWC|WillSWC]] 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per all the other deletes. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per all others, especially RGT. [[User:Lemonsawdust|Lemonsawdust]] 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)