Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates at Ocean’s Edge
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 --Bubba hotep 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pirates at Ocean’s Edge
Poorly written; future game with no references; author unlikely to return to fix up article - I had to fix up his typos and even then, I didn't fix it all - author should take responsibility for cleaning up their own articles! Postcard Cathy 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the unlikelihood of an author to return to finish this page is not relevant, other people can finish the work. In any case, this is still an officially announced product of a notable game, Pirates of the Spanish Main whose sets already have articles. Even if it's for some reason not released, that itself would be a reason to have content. BTW, AFD nominations go at the TOP of pages, not the bottom. I've noticed you've done that before, please stop doing that. FrozenPurpleCube 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- BTW, this does probably need to be moved, since ' is different from ’, but I'm not sure which is the preferred on Wikipedia or how to do it properly with the AFD going on. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: not a video game, thus not in the scope of the project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to a single author. It is not up to the creator of the article to provide all the sources and complete the entire article; that is the domain of the entire Wikipedia community. However, I would like to see sources that assert the series' notability. --Scottie_theNerd 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as the product of a notable company, I would certainly assert its notability through that. More importantly though, this series itself has won the Origins Vanguard award, the sales figures have been quite respectable, I don't know the exact figures offhand, but it is in the millions. FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- From what I'm seeing, all the articles with the exception of the first game are stub articles. Either they need to be expanded, or merged to the main article. --Scottie_theNerd 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't disagree with you that the pages could use improvement and expansion, but I think that most collectible games work better with the pages being separate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- From what I'm seeing, all the articles with the exception of the first game are stub articles. Either they need to be expanded, or merged to the main article. --Scottie_theNerd 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as the product of a notable company, I would certainly assert its notability through that. More importantly though, this series itself has won the Origins Vanguard award, the sales figures have been quite respectable, I don't know the exact figures offhand, but it is in the millions. FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Expansion to a noted series, the fact that the nominator had to do some cleanup doesn't mean the article should be deleted; I've cleaned up many new articles myself.
- 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.
