Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regnum Online

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. W.marsh 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum Online[edit]

Procedural, contested speedy Tawker 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Google results are all blogs or forums or beta download sites. A game played over the internet would be expected to have some coverage on websites. Demiurge 12:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Fails Web guidelines, no assertion of notability, no substantiating Ghits. Withdrawing vote. Eusebeus 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, Speedy Delete - Fails all web guidelines, no independant third party coverage, article seems to go into way too much detail, not to mention being a poster child for WP:NOT an instruction manual/game guide (just look at combat section to see what I mean) The article also smacks of crystal balling with a couple of sections stating 'Information on this cannot be disclosed at this timre.' See below for new thinking. The Kinslayer 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added several coverage articles about the game at the External links section. Please check them out.
    • I'm afraid none are valid sources AFAIK, due to the fact they are mere databases with no limitations on who can list themselves on it. We need actual genuine non-trivial media coverage. (And the article is still appalling anyway.) The Kinslayer 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to disagree, but between the spanish sources there are 2 newspapers (La Razón and Infobae) and a television news coverage (Telenoche). The article may need cleanup or to get shorter, but instead of deleting it, it may need collaborations. Jcpetruzza 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well excuse me for not speaking spanish for some bizarre reason. And the onus of collaboration falls on peole who want the article kept. That's not me, or anyone else so far. The Kinslayer 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, you need not speak spanish, but the article does cite independent sources. As for the manual style, I shall eliminate detail. I'll be back in a while and work on it. Jcpetruzza 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's covered by Larazon, which appears to be a high-end general news site (whether they have a print edition I don't know), a video segment on Channel 13, which appears to be a local news channel (maybe its national), as well as more game-oriented media. That sounds like WP:WEB to me, or getting pretty close to it at any rate. The game is new, so more coverage is likely. Somebody put a lot of work into the article, I'm not convinced that the subject is sufficiently lacking in notability to just toss that. Herostratus 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have greatly reduced the article, reducing unnecessary detail, abandoning it's former manual and crystal ball style. Next time I post a new article I'll be sure to add sources at the very beginning to avoid these kind of issues. Though it angered me at first, I admit this whole discussion helped me improve my style. I hope the article is not deleted. Thanks for both positive and negative criticism. I still think improvements should be proposed in the discussion page before inserting a speedy deletion notice. Jcpetruzza 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, from what I could gather from bad translations of the spanish, it does indeed seem notable, so I've changed to a keep (and the article is much better now!) The Kinslayer 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to be fairly well-written and formatted, and has just about enough reliable sources to pass WEB. Time should provide a few more. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Seems notable enough to pass WP:WEB. Just because someone hasn't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't notable. While mainly a Latin game, I still feel this needs to stay. guitarhero777777 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commentary, and contra to nom. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 29 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/Regnum_Online&oldid=1070208871"