Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – Avi 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball Online[edit]

Ultimate Baseball Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taggedand deleted as CSD G4 (repost) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online but the content is substantially different from the original, which sucked royally. It remains to be seen whether this is genuinely significant per WP:WEB, an issue not really addressed before as the article as originally deleted was blatant vanispamcruftisement. Over to you... Guy 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - makes an assertion as to why it is notable. Not sure if it is or not but at least the article attempts it. Chris Kreider 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Assertions of notability only protect the article from speedy deletion. It needs proof if it's to be kept. ColourBurst 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per my comments in the deletion review. - Hahnchen 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first time this article was up for AFD, the content was ripped wholesale from ad copy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that does not speak to the significance of the subject or its coverage in reliable secondary sources, does it? So what of this article? Guy 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (See below for new decision)- Only claim to notability that I can see is that it's the only game of it's kind. But the 'unique' arguement is a very weak one. I'm the only one of me, where's my article? As this article stands, it only has the official website as reference. It's gotta go. The Kinslayer 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you see the deletion review mentioned above. This game does have some links on Google News. - Hahnchen 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was making my judgement based an the article we are discussing, not what other people have said previously. No mention of Google news in the article. The Kinslayer 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It is certainly a unique game concept, but that does not nesscarily make it notable. Unless mainstream video gaming or sports sources have commented on the game, it does not pass keeping it for me. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Someone has dumped several reliable sources into the external links section, although these have not been properly integrated with the article. - Hahnchen 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Those news stories will do nicely for notability! Changing to weak keep. The fact that it's a free online broswer-based MMO holds me back from being more emphatic about keeping it. The Kinslayer 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://pc.ign.com/objects/822/822506.html

      • Good point, I've corrected my statement to reflect that! The Kinslayer 11:55, 10 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ultimate_Baseball_Online_(second_nomination)&oldid=1145593168"