Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellborn

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 after a rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellborn[edit]

an advertisement solely designed to engender pre-release interest in a commercial product, the sole concern of the editor logged-in specifically to plant this pre-edited text Wetman (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has at least some outside sources and the game seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a commercial work and Wikimedia, funded by the people, does not exist as a form of free advertising. The article is clearly written and laid out to engender interest in the product. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. When the game comes into existence, even an alpha that gets reviewed, it can (and should) come back. For now it's just an ad. Hobit (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleanup removes ad issues, and IGN previews make it notable. Hobit (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and as per advertisement. Lines like "Spellborn distinguishes itself from other MMORPGs" are unacceptable. Rt . 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple Google search brings up significant 3rd party coverage from authoritative sources [1], [2], [3], [4]. This meets notability as well as verifiability. If it reads like an advert then that's for editors to improve. Joshdboz (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wetman, your original discussion on the article's talk page assumed bad faith on the part of the original author. Even if there was a conflict-of-interest, that does not invalidate the notability of this game. Joshdboz (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit histories concerned speak for themselves. I made no assumptions, only deductions. --Wetman (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"no assumptions, only deductions" - that's a little biased - from my review of the edit history, I don't see that the only possible conclusion to be drawn was that which you made. Certainly the article needs its own POV cleanup, but your claim of "deduction" is subjective at best, and not suitable for determining authorial intent. Achromatic (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed all the advertisements - I kindly ask the above editors to review their comments. This is currently a verifiable article about a notable subject, with no advertisements, and just as relevant as other upcoming games such as Dragon Age and StarCraft II. User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Krator (talk · contribs) has done some DIFF good work on this article, and there is adequate sourcing. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources to pass and exceed notability requirements, it was an advert but now it isn't. Someone another (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And rename to The Chronicles of Spellborn per SharkD. Someone another (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Krator (talk · contribs)'s rewrite, notability is clearly asserted through the reliable sources, and the promotional tone has been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to mention that other games (like Aion: Tower of Eternity or Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning) are not released as well, but still recieve significant coverage here at Wikipedia. The article I put up uses many 3rd party sites to underline noteability and creditability - the game has also been present and accessable at both GC Leizip and G-Star Korea (the E3 equivalent for Europe and Asia, respectively), but has recieved few English coverage on these events, thus I did use few sources from there, although you might check [5]. I don't want to start an advertisement / WP:VG/GL discussion here, but I'd be happy to see some posters over at my talk page after the AfD discussion has been resolved, because I don't agree with some assessments. Langeweile (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and should probably be a speedy. Prior afd should stand until the game is released; until then, only speculation, primary sources, and rephrasings of those primary sources exist. —Cryptic 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Krator, and rename to The Chronicles of Spellborn. SharkD (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article doesn't read like an advertisement to me. It has a couple of lines that could stand some editing, but it has references. Rray (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are some ropey looking references, but the IGN and Ten Ton Hammer coverage is enough to satisfy WP:N (which makes a change for one of our MMORPG articles!) Required cleanup can be done at our leisure. Marasmusine (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2007 (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.