Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd 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 keep. John254 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Sonata

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Star Sonata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4 and new information. Procedural nomination, no opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Pre-emptive tagging due to the types of comments on the deletion review. Also, incase it is referred to, don't believe the 100k characters claptrap (that was referred to in the deletion review). It's obviously misleading (quoted figure of 760 subscribers as of Feb 11 2008). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note for closing admin dependent on the out come of this AfD consideration should be given restoring two fair use images that were deleted as orphans after the previous closure. Gnangarra 12:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: This article passes the notability requirements as set forth in the Wikipedia guidelines for independent 3rd party reviews and mentions. JeffL (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Really, really weak keep there are exactly two refs to coverage in reliable sources, rather than players' sites or blogs. WP:N isn't clear about whether sources have to be independent of each other, so I'll have to give this the benefit of the doubt. The inline refs need work. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, based on the references provided during the deletion review as well as in the article. It definitely needs more reliable sources in the article itself to show notability, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but Cleanup - the article needs more third-party reliable sources to flesh it out and should not be reliant on self-published sources per WP:SELFPUBGazimoff (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but relist - the article lacks reliable third-party sources at the moment and I'm not sure if there even are a reasonable amount available, so keep the article and allow sources to be added but if they aren't, relist for deletion.

• Weak Keep but Cleanup - There are at least two non-trivial published works from reliable secondary sources mentioned in the deletion review (three if this interview with the author qualifies), at least weakly satisfying criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Although the game is not popular, it does have some interesting features identified as such in reviews from reliable sources: (1) "NPC units that follow your orders... automated ships and space stations" - GameZone, (2) vying "against other teams to become emperor of the galaxy" - GameTunnel. In comparison to other games in the genre, I believe these make the game at least somewhat "worthy of notice" (equated with notability in WP:Notability). Thanar (talk) 04:22, 12 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.