 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Wizardman 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Silkroad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Tagged {{db-spam}} and I agree that the article is laudatory and entirely lacking in balance, but it's the work of multiple editors so is more likely a fan POV issue than outright spam. That said, the article is almost entirely self-sourced and contains no evidence of notability established from independent reliable sources. I believe it needs a Heyman standard rewrite, in its present form it fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS and probably WP:N. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is too long and reads more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia article. Beemer69 chitchat 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no reliable secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—A lack of third-party coverage of this game leads me to conclude it is not notable. Livitup (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1) The NPOV dispute dated March 2008 is a concern that the article is too critical of the game. 2) It's true that English language sources are lacking, but this is a Korean video game, and a Korean language Google search turned up plenty of independent sources, such as Gamespot Korea's coverage of the game. 3) I agree the how-to-play stuff is taking up way too much space; I added a {{Copy to gaming wiki}} template as a heads up. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I have little to comment on as I think others hit on it very well with the NPOV/RS issues which are flagrant throughout the entire article. Copperwire (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.