Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM)

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. Sandstein 09:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (CD-ROM)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this warez CD-ROM series meets WP:GNG. 1 NON-WP:INDEPENDENT ref to a Twilight CD website; may not be WP:V-erifiable either. One link returns WP:404. 189.25.224.254 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell how the authorship works on Tweakers but it might be the only useful secondary source from the lot. Perhaps the Dutch is an impediment to my search, but I'm unable to find any easily accessible historical news stories. I'll go with delete for now, but please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding much in my native tongue (English) for this, but the infamous lawsuit/crime which appears to accompany this could be of interest-both for the article's interest to readers as well as establishing the topic's bona fides (I'll not use the n-word).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious about deletion for article quality reasons. I only suggested the above because it would establish inclusion criteria. But those are properties of the topic of the article, not its contents. If we can't yet determine that, we should not reach a delete consensus. Then, WP:DEADLINE suggests we wait and WP:NOEFFORT suggests we remove any unverified material until improvements are made.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current article needs cleanup, particularly for original research, but the subject appears notable. The www.anti-piracy.nl and fwdmagazine.be sourcing appears reliable, and i also found this pdf from anti-piracy.nl. Pirate software seldom receives the kind of coverage official releases do for a variety of reasons - this pirated collection seems notable for both its volume and for the legal actions that targeted it.Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dialectric's reasoning. SJK (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2015 (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.