Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict in Jerusalem (game)

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. - Philippe 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict in Jerusalem (game)

Conflict in Jerusalem (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I believe that this is an non-notable video game  Marlith (Talk)  00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Who decides whether and article is noteable or not? But it isn't a long article,very short actually, it doesn't say why it is noteable article.Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything on the game anywhere. The (sadly) common name doesn't help, but... Hobit (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• very weak keep as I can't see the articles Pixelface cites and I suspect at least one of them is a blog/user content. But may well have reasonable sources. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I see sources[1] like The Salt Lake Tribune, The Kansas City Star, and The Dallas Morning News. --Pixelface (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - i checked out Pixelface's sources, and they're essentially reprints of the same article for local papers. They also cite the same source - Christian Computing Magazine. As a result I'd lean towards arguing that these aren't really third party, although I'm happy to be corrected, as I don't think CCmag can be counted as impartial third party in this case. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to Gazimoff's point above, looking at the snatch of text I can see, the subject is this magazine, which itself contains some details of the game. All well and good, but if it's not the subject of these articles then there's no actual analysis of the game, they're responding to the magazine - without multiple sources which analyze the game itself there's never going to be a passable article, WP:N aside. Someoneanother 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The external link in the article points to a page with a few testimonies, but they're not strong. Someoneanother 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Delete - There's one reference. That's worth something. Also, the article is very young. If we start deleting badly referenced articles while they're still in the cradle, we wouldn't have many articles. I think the PROD is premature. But the article has been around for a year, with no effort to reference it. (My bad, I didn't check the year.) Time to let this article go. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd missed that as well, did look at the history but still registered it as a new article. Someoneanother 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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.