Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Galaxia

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. There are issues with notability and verifiability. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Galaxia[edit]

Notability is my concern here. I have had a look for reviews; Download.com and Gamespace are typical of what I am finding, not exactly WP:Reliable sources (The former, for example, says at one point "We weren't able to test the online capabilities because our network wouldn't let us on, but we imagine this would be a great game to play against others on the Web."), plus the usual dozens and dozens of directory entries. Marasmusine 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is IGN a reliable source? Mikesc86 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no information there. Marasmusine 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Marismo, what makes you think that Download.com and Gamespace, are reliable sources for a small game like Pax Galaxia? If you want reliable information you should have visited and read the official website, and forums, after all they would know best.[reply]

My name is Robert, and I am one of the most active members of the Pax Community, and I saw no errors in the article except for the terms like pusher, nomad, and turtle, which I have pointed out already.

"We weren't able to test the online capabilities because our network wouldn't let us on, but we imagine this would be a great game to play against others on the Web."- you

Many of us in the community find this irrelevent, [1]I mean does it really matter if someone cannot fix up the game? It does not make the article false or unreliable.

No offense but you are not a member of the community, and as far as I can see posses no knowlegde in this area, with alll due respect please leave this article up to us, and restore it to the original version.

PS: Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, I don't really use Wiki other than reading the articles. And sorry if the procedure, or edict is wrong. Rob 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Rob13055[reply]

Hi Rob, I'm looking for secondary reliable sources, that is, information published by sources other than the makers and users of the game itself. All subjects need to show that they are notable, by being the subject of such sources. Once notability is asserted, the primary source (i.e. the game and official website) can be used to verify information in the article.

You're right that I'm not a member of the community, and my only knowledge of the game will have to come from reliable sources. But that makes me both neutral (WP:NPOV) and adhere to WP:Verifiability, both important Wikipedia policies. Marasmusine 09:14, 3 October 2007 (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.