Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Booty

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The result was withdrawn by nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Booty

Article fails to meet WP:N, also, those of you arguing that there are other xbox live games that have pages, please view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely reviewed video game [1], [2], [3], many many ghits.. JJL (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It isn't an achievement to get a review by a publication who's job is to review games.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N speaks to independent coverage, not achievement (nor ..."fame," "importance," or "popularity...").

Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not understand WP:N. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - How about you actually take a look at the policy, and the article before you go insulting people. I understand WP:N perfectly well, three sources in hardly significant.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an insult, it was a statement. WP:N does not require independent coverage to be spectacular, it just requires that there IS independent coverage. The thing is that you seem to have put a time limit on when an article can get sources, and instead of bringing up a discussion about this article's problems, you used AfD, which is not the proper venue for article improvement. If you felt it as an insult, it wasn't. I was stating what my argument was, and the argument was that the rationale for deletion was that it violated WP:N, when it didn't. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — one need not go far (look at the game's web page here) to find evidence of significant coverage via reliable secondary sources as well other nominations that easily establish notability. I have also taken the liberty to do basic cleanup and copyediting so that it looks somewhat encyclopedic and not like a directory entry or an advertisement or possibly something copy-and-pasted from another site. MuZemike 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Per the above.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:22, 26 January 2009 (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.