Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax warrior

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 keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pax warrior[edit]

Upcoming game, apparently. Non-notable. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure the article was just started today because the game was given a mention (its own paragraph) in the most recent issue of TIME Magazine. Whether or not this alone confirms notability is open for debate. -- Kicking222 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes some more sense (note that there are no sources in the article itself...) But, per WP:NOT, this article and the site are not a crystal ball. That having been said, if you decide to keep it, the name should probably be changed to Pax Warrior. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must respectfully disagree with your decision to propose the deletion of the Pax warrior article. I do so because I disagree with you labeling it as non-notable. I feel IMHO that it is notable enough to warrant its own page. I say this because the reason I started this article in the first place was that I noticed it in TIME Magazine (8/14/06, pg 20), a highly circulated news magazine. However this is not reason enough, so to further my argument I quote the article in which it states that this program is "incorporated into thousands of curriculums in Canada, Britain, South Africa, and will hit the U.S. this fall." So those students who take the curriculum and the teachers that teach the curriculum all know about Pax warrior. I also would direct you to the PeaceMaker (game) (which is similar to Pax warrior) page, which is very similar to the Pax warrior page and has not been deleted. In closing I would remind you that I am still a bit new to Wikipedia and if this makes no sense to you, then you may ignore it. I will however be reposting this post on the Pax warrior discussion page. (repost from Koavf's User Talk page)Cpuwhiz11 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've now, after seeing this BBC TV mention, this Radio 4 story, and this article from Edge (magazine), along with the TIME paragraph and being featured at the Games for Change conference six weeks ago, that my vote is officially strong keep. -- Kicking222 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even more press: a mention in The Globe and Mail; a feature on games focusing on social reform from MTV News; another feature- this one huge- from BBC News. -- Kicking222 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the TIME article itself. -- Kicking222 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The press coverage is sufficient to prove its notability. The article itself is very poor though, and needs significant expansion by someone familiar with the subject so that the game's importance is evident.--Mako 06:49, 9 August 2006 (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.