Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike Manager (second nomination)

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. A Train ^{take the} 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike Manager (second nomination)

The article was previousl deleted in April 2006, though according to the admin that saw the {{db-repost}} tag, the content was different. Anyway, I couldn't find any reliable sources for verification. Everything that I found was just a reprinted press release. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If it's a reprinted press release, then it may be a copyvio. You didn't say anything about that, though, when you marked it for speedy deletion. Do you have a link to the press release? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was I couldn't find sources that weren't reprinted press releases. As far as I know, the article is not a copyright violation of any sort. --Wafulz 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no third-party sources. —Cryptic 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Per Cryptic Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Might not be super-notable, but the article is well-written. Maybe someone can look for sources some time  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how well the article is written. I've asserted there are no sources- the only way to disprove this is to provide them. Also, have a read through WP:SIG please. --Wafulz 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic, the fact that the game costs money to play makes it even more questionable. Krimpet 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would costing money to play be relevent? World of Warcraft costs money, as does virtually every MMOG in existence. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he might have implied that this article was advertising. --Wafulz 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I think the paragraph that mentions the price is worded curiously like an advertisement, boasting (sic) "an increasing user base of approximately 30.000 members spread throughout Europe and USA" and "the VIP-package that enables users to watch their games in a 2D-simulated environment". Krimpet 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless third party sources can be found. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, very original research. BJ^Talk 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced--Urbanshakedown 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even rewritten it still has no credible claim per WP:WEB and no reliable external sourcing.--Isotope23 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided with verifiable sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent sources, no evidence of notability, no WP:V. And doubly so on a second AfD since previous AfD result is presumed correct and needs to stand unless evidence is produced. --Shirahadasha 05:09, 1 February 2007 (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.