Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magebane
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 delete. - Bobet 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magebane[edit]
Completely non-notable roguelike described in a stub article. Unlikely to ever be expanded substantially. Nandesuka 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, unless sources showing its notability can be found. David Mestel(Talk) 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs alot of cleanup but it is still a legit gaming stub. Stubs exist for a reason, to beg for editing. NeoFreak 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been in this state since 2004. How many years do you think that we should hang on to stubs before we give up on them? This is a serious question. Nandesuka 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A stub by itself is a legit article format. The best way to improve a stub that is acting more like a thorn is to roll up your sleeves and expand it. Often contacting the creator or any major contributing editors for help works well too, esp if the creator has alot of other articles on his plate and might have simply forgotten about it. That last part is just my opinion though. NeoFreak 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been in this state since 2004. How many years do you think that we should hang on to stubs before we give up on them? This is a serious question. Nandesuka 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources - the external link is to a page for a game which (by this article's admission) "has got nothing to do with Magebane except the name". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm normally in favor of keeping stubs. But given that the game seems defunct, its lack of notability and paucity of information verifiable through reliable sources seem unlikely to improve. William Pietri 23:25, 12 September 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.