Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenge ProMode Arena
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bot523 (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 6 October 2006 (BOT: Removing category from closed AfD debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 13:46, 6 October 2006 by Bot523 (talk | contribs) (BOT: Removing category from closed AfD debate)
- 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 no evidence presented of coverage by reliable sources. W.marsh 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the same reasons I have outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFRaG
--Ryodox 20:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Ryodox Pogo 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable game mod. Fan-1967 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Large community and one of the most popular Q3 mod. Some proof of CPMA's notability and popularity: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Visor 08:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of multiple reliable sources, not verifiable without original research. Wickethewok 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable game mod. 66.246.72.108 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've cleaned up, added some references and proofs of mod's notability (no. of downloads, leauges and world-wide competitions). Please reconsider your vote. Visor 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a vote. And references from the games website aren't considered reliable sources. Whispering(talk/c) 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's an official website? Visor 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a vote. And references from the games website aren't considered reliable sources. Whispering(talk/c) 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, what we need is reliable secondary sources to be specific - that is, sources other than those responsible for the product in question. Wickethewok 18:33, 30 September 2006 (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.