Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike Online

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 keep. John254 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike Online

Counter-Strike Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Little information. gracz54 (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:SOFIXIT, there are some refs [1] [2] [3]. I don't know if this version of CS will be notable on it's own, but CS itself probably is, so maybe add information to the main Counter-strike article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep? WP:NOEFFORT - nomination is not a valid reason for deletion. Fosnez 11:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep no reason to delete it presented by the nominator. Even a little information is better than none at all. Hut 8.5 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep invalid reasoning, and article has sufficient information to stand as a stub for the time being. This can probably be closed soon, provided there are no further !votes in favor of deletion or another outcome. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We do not delete articles simply because they are stubs. CS itself is very notable; although still in development this Asian-market version can be reasonably sure of commercial success; finding reliable sources is not a problem. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Counter Strike is incredibly notable and there is no reason to delete this. It does need more information though. Knowitall 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)--
  • Delete Single sentence stub and lack of secondary sources means this article fails to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Keb25 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article will only have to be re-created in the future if it's deleted. It hurts nobody and nothing to keep it until more information surfaces. --Tom Edwards 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a stub that will be expanded 86.13.32.203 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Vote by anon user. Keb25 00:20, 16 October 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.