Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonsfoot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
keep, but improve substantially |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Delete''' The lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] is a concern here for this article. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' The lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] is a concern here for this article. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', because it seems to assert some notability, but I agree that the main editors to the article should add additional reliable sources and perhaps divide the article into sections with headings. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', because it seems to assert some notability, but I agree that the main editors to the article should add additional reliable sources and perhaps divide the article into sections with headings. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' A good chunk of the content is unnecessary and unencyclopaedic, but as communities of first edition D&D players go, this one is notable. [[User:Capmango|Capmango]] 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:34, 11 July 2007
Lacking any "significant coverage by independent sources" as required by WP:NOTE Google news archives search turns up nothing Corpx 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. What sources are present are insufficient to establish notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The lack of reliable sources is a concern here for this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because it seems to assert some notability, but I agree that the main editors to the article should add additional reliable sources and perhaps divide the article into sections with headings. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A good chunk of the content is unnecessary and unencyclopaedic, but as communities of first edition D&D players go, this one is notable. Capmango 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)