Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate King Online

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 - consensus is it doesn't quite make it yet. - Yomangani^talk 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate King Online

Article fails to even allege notability. I PRODded it, the prod was removed on the odd argument that this being a commercial piece of software, PROD doesn't apply. Whatever. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This is a real online game, though fairly new, so I wouldn't expect much for it, and it was recently blanked because of game guide concerns. Since this game is so new though, I'd rather give it a month or two to see if it has legs before deleting it. That said, they do have a profile on Gamespot, so it may be notable enough. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a games database Bwithh 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, the prod was removed per Wikipedia policy, which states that once a prod is removed for any reason, the article is not supposed to be subsequently re-prodded. See the WP:PROD page for more details. If the original author hadn't removed the notice, I probably would have as it appears to meet WP:SOFTWARE (although rather poorly and without citing sources). The catch is that I don't care enough about the article to actually bother improving it, which is why I suggested sending it to regular AfD. --Alan Au 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Checking the history, it looks like I actually removed the original prod. Regardless, needs to undergo a regular AfD. --Alan Au 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Only because you deprodded it for specious reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In hindsight, I was a bit terse in the edit summary. The implication about of my comment about it being a commercial piece of software was that it meets WP:SOFTWARE regarding third-party coverage (game reviews and strategy guides in print, etc.). I typically reserve prod for unsalvageable articles. Of course, the irony is that I'm not personally interested in salvaging the current article, which is why I suggested sending it to AfD. Please see the article talk page for more information. --Alan Au 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) --Alan Au 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's toeing the crystal ball line, but with an entry at GameSpot and an open beta, deleting it now will ultimately result in a restoration later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A GameSpot entry does set it aside from the cesspit of free MMOs, but it's still only in beta; it might be suddenly taken down (like Multiplayer BattleTech 3025) and then fade into obscurity. The current article is pretty rough, but if it achieves notability avid fans will provide something better. Until it attracts those avid fans, though, I think it falls just short of inclusion. Garrett^Talk 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have non-trivial multiple reliable sources yet. Wickethewok 15:54, 24 October 2006 (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.