Talk:Crack intro

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Video games Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Elsie Lovelock (7 participants)
Walid Sultan Midani (0 participants)
Federal Disaster Response Agency (9 participants)
Platinum Arts Sandbox (2 participants)
Roobet (1 participant)
Allin Kempthorne (1 participant)
Fuzz Academy (4 participants; relisted)
Spring Engine (3 participants; relisted)
Toon Blast (9 participants; relisted)
Rise of Kingdoms (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Keep this article

I agree with the other editors who support keeping this article. It provides good encylopedic information on a notable subject. I oppose merging or deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it fails WP:V. No evidence was actually provided to show it was notable. Simply claiming it is without providing any sources doesn't actually make it notable. They've managed to find all of 2 trivial mentions of crack intros which sources all of 2 sentences, which means 99% of this is unsourced which means it can't stay here. Numerous people looked for days to try and find sources to defend it and that was all they could come up with. Unless you can provide sources to satisfy the policy requirements the article can't stay the way it is.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article can help establisjh notability, but since it quotes Wikipedia we shouldn't use it as a source I think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be used as a citation it can't be used to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An other, but in Swedish: [1]

If you read through the AFD, you'll see that other sources do exist. In Crossmr's reality, they don't though. - hahnch e n 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then demonstrate them. Also read WP:NOTE under trivial coverage. The only 2 sources provided during afd (one in the afd one added to the article) contained a single sentence about crack intros. Neither of those are "significant coverage of the subject by reliable third party sources independent of the subject". Perhaps you should spend more time finding sources instead of trying to make personal attacks. A piracy based organization isn't really independent of the subject of something else also related to piracy, nor is it significant coverage of cracks intros. Its an interview with some guy named dubmood in which he seems to answer 1 question which talks about crack intros a couple times and name drops it a couple more times. Significant coverage has been traditionally held on wikipedia to mean a full article actually dedicated to the subject in question.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains several external links dedicated to crack intros. While they can't be used as sources they demonstrate that this is a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, they're all self-published, fan pages, group pages, etc. none of those are capable of establishing notability. If a site can't be used a reliable source it can't establish notability. Even some sites which can be used as a reliable source can't establish notability (primary sources, secondary sources not independent of the subject, press releases and college/university news papers).--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the in-line mentions, there's more than that in the afd. Maybe you should spend more time looking at those sources, instead of patronising everyone by repeating definitions to everyone who disagreed with you as you did in the afd. - hahnch e n 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge

I just want to support the merge idea put forth by User:Crossmr. A lot of people in the AFD supported it, and it strikes me as a decent compromise. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]