Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornby Virtual Railway
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The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hornby Virtual Railway[edit]
- Hornby Virtual Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No evidence of notability, contested prod, so here we are. Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
'WITHDRAW I'll withdraw this. If the person removing the prod felt it was notable they probably should have tossed up some sources instead of saying "Try AfD". I interpreted that as it probably isn't notable but I'd like to have it sit here for 5 more days.--Crossmr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Not a hint of notability, no linked reviews, etc, etc. RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; could not find secondary sources -Samuel Tan 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same reasons as above, no notability. Rob Riv (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This game is obviously notable since there are multiple third-party sources such as reviews and newspaper articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's OK, Colonel Warden, I'll do the work for you. Review Review Review Review Amazon review (not user-supplied) and even a write-up by Alan Coren in the London Times - here. Poor state of the article is no reason to delete it. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep — The Times article seems like the only article in the bunch that show any trace of verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (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.