Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creature Conflict: The Clan Wars

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creature Conflict: The Clan Wars

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a game that has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers and doesn't demonstrate how the game is notable. Prod was contested on the grounds of the link to Moby Games entry, but this does not appear to meet the guidelines on reliable sources so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game has a track record at Moby Games, so it is absolutely verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsugar (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Robertsugar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Little significant coverage, All MobyGames confirms is existence, not notability. Clear COI on the part of Robertsugar as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I red MikeWazowski's comment and removed an external link pointing to my site. So, COI can't be an argument from here on...— Robertsugar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The argument isn't about conflict of interest on the article, its about whether there are sufficient reliable sources to allow readers to verify the content of the article and to show that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. None of the "sources" given so far seem to be reliable. If you want to show that Creature Conflict is notable, please supply independent, published sources that are significantly about the game. Sparthorse (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found 977,000 search results when I used Google in the right way. test it here. Meaning is that further editing of the article needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsugar (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Robertsugar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, but a lot of those are not wikipedia standard reliable sources. For instance, many of those hits are merely user uploaded youtube videos, or screenshots. If you want to keep the article, you'd be better off listing off specific sources, like I have below. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- As awful as this article is as far as quality goes, it has received some coverage
Here's some websites I've never heard of. Not sure if their deemed reliable or not.
- "Game Chronicles"
- "Game Cell"
Neutral at the moment, wait to see what people have to say about these sources... Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per my sources above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a video game, so "credible", not self-published gaming websites would be reliable sources. The coverage noted above seems to work. What do we expect, an article in The New York Times? This is a topic widely ignored by the mainstream media and academic publishers. For medical articles, we can usually have "hard" RS standards: books, magazines, etc that have a credible publisher and academic peer review. To demand the same here would blow most existing video game articles out of the water. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourcing is passable ([1]). JORGENEV 12:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.