Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark and Shattered Lands 2

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Shattered Lands[edit]

Keep, the TMC award and reference is notable and a RS. Also, this RFD has not been appropriately handled. --Theblog (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets all notability requirements. travb (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It lacks verification, the only reference proves a website lets people vote, votes which are easily skewed by vote stuffing thus making it not a reliable award or rank. "Chosen Game of the Month by MudMagic in September 2006" could possibly be notable if we knew something about the magazine/website. What notability criteria do you think it meets specifically, because the lack of verification means I can't really find any at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. An award by popular vote is a perfectly valid way of giving awards and showing notability. DGG (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an improper nomination. This article was nominated for AFD by an IP as shown here, with this deletion discussion page created by someone who happened to have seen the AFD tag on the article. No opinion in regards of notability of the article. MuZemike 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vote-button / click-voting is a particularly unreliable, and no indication of importance whatsoever. I'm open to changing to keep if someone can show something along the lines of WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the discussion on the talk page that at least one editor is interested in adding sources. The deletion process also has not been handled correctly. The first step is adding the request for sources template, which I just did. If the article still isn't properly referenced in a couple of months deletion might be in order. --Scandum (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2009 (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.