Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Days a Skeptic
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. The "keep" comments didn't address any of the valid policy-based arguments for deletion. Sandstein 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 7 Days a Skeptic
No reliable source to support notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with source. Bfelite 21:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What source? Andre (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it with one I mean. The more correct action is to add request for sources before AFD anyway. Bfelite
- I'm not asking for sources for specific claims, I'm saying that I've looked for multiple nontrivial sources, none exist, and therefore the topic is not notable. Andre (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If your saying it needs a source then the right action I think is to put a request for it on page. If you mean you want a specific source saying its notable, the existing ones provide that- given the current notability guidlines for video and computer games. Bfelite 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- They certainly do not. The current sources are the official site, a specialized abandonware website, a wiki created by users of the AGS software, and a download page. Of those, only the Abandonia Reloaded link is potentially a notable one, and even that's arguable. We need multiple, non-trivial sources. Andre (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most historical games do not have multiple non-trivial web-sources that can be found on the web. A link to a online magazine or paper magazine would be better, I agree. However, im not sure thats grounds for deletion. Bfelite 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I never said the links have to be on the web. They can be print sources. Also, this game is hardly historical, it's from 2004. Andre (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say they had to be on the web either, I agree that print sources would be good. The main issue is if the need for sources means it should be deleted. Articles are usually given various tags rather then AFD when this is the case. Bfelite 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not the need for sources but the need for proof of notability. Andre (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would still recomend adding tags for sources rather then AFD. Opinions about notability vary on the wikipedia, as do opinions about what sources establish notablity. If your basis for non-notablity is the quality of sources (not merely that there sources exist), then the solution is to request more sources. Bfelite 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not the need for sources but the need for proof of notability. Andre (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say they had to be on the web either, I agree that print sources would be good. The main issue is if the need for sources means it should be deleted. Articles are usually given various tags rather then AFD when this is the case. Bfelite 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I never said the links have to be on the web. They can be print sources. Also, this game is hardly historical, it's from 2004. Andre (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most historical games do not have multiple non-trivial web-sources that can be found on the web. A link to a online magazine or paper magazine would be better, I agree. However, im not sure thats grounds for deletion. Bfelite 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- They certainly do not. The current sources are the official site, a specialized abandonware website, a wiki created by users of the AGS software, and a download page. Of those, only the Abandonia Reloaded link is potentially a notable one, and even that's arguable. We need multiple, non-trivial sources. Andre (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If your saying it needs a source then the right action I think is to put a request for it on page. If you mean you want a specific source saying its notable, the existing ones provide that- given the current notability guidlines for video and computer games. Bfelite 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for sources for specific claims, I'm saying that I've looked for multiple nontrivial sources, none exist, and therefore the topic is not notable. Andre (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it with one I mean. The more correct action is to add request for sources before AFD anyway. Bfelite
- What source? Andre (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because of absence of sources, NOT because it fails WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy or guideline. Voretustalk 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. First part of a fairly well known series. Jefffire 12:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Lack of reliable sources on a subject is definitely grounds for deletion. It is not pssible to write a proper encyclopedia article that complies with Wikipedia content policies on any subject without basing it upon multiple reliable sources. It seems that the nominator has been diligent in attempting to find reliable sources that could be used as the basis for the article. --Chondrite 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I have played it doesn't that make me a "reliable source"?You wikipedia vampires need to stop picking on people like yahtzee and jerry jackson and get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.108.146 (talk)
- 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.
