Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phobos (computer game)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phobos (computer game)

Game in development with no release date and no assertion of notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does fail WP:CRYSTAL and no WP:RS can exist to establish WP:N. Perhaps after the game is completed and released.. MURGH ^disc. 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remain very wary of calling for deletion, this was nominated a mere 30 minutes after creation. I would have at least given the creator a few days to try to establish notability. I'm also somewhat wary that its a new user we're dealing with, its a very good way of discouraging any further participation by immediately nominating their first edits for deletion. -- Sabre (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Give the article a chance. It hasn't even gotten one. MuZemike (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game's site describes it as "a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game (MMORPG) created by a team of volunteers from all around the world. Phobos is the first product of “Myth Entertainment” and though it's still in development, it already has a strong community." IE it's a low-fi indie effort, the likes of which almost never gain notability, the lack of sources coming up in a search illustrates this, articles can't be built with "ever heard of this..?" message board posts. Though I don't like the idea that someone's first contributions are up for deletion so quickly, nobody likes their contributions being deleted regardless of how long they've been on WP. Dismissing this process due to that alone is not a kindness in the long run, much as I would like the article's creator to feel welcome. Someone another 16:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Viable for deletion per WP:CRYSTAL, however I agree with Sabre and MuZemike. Allow the article to develop further before ringing the bell. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basic WP:V requirements seem unlikely at the moment. If the contributor somehow fulfills this policy during the duration of the AfD, then I will review my !vote. Marasmusine (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources to establish notability or satisfy verifiability. And you aren't doing the creator any favours by letting him spend time building the article when it fundamentally fails inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 18 December 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.