Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmwind

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmwind

[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this game. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (no evidence provided this is the same game as discussed in www.illusionware.it and nothing tells me this is a reliable source) and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2010 (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) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found the following independent sources which helps the game's notability. This has had a lot of media coverage and might see a Nintendo Wii or Xbox Live Arcade version, since the publisher also ported previous games to those Nintendo / Microsoft systems.

Andrew wu77 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another secondary reference

Kotaku--Cube b3 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cube b3 is trying to astroturf to keep the article and all the keeps may be sock puppets. This link is proof. http://dcemulation.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=100844 -68.185.90.190 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not invalidate his comment, nor does it rationalize your delete !vote. Marasmusine (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the sources provided I do not see any that would be called significant coverage of Sturmwind in independent reliable sources. Reproductions of press releases and blogs and trivial announcements are not good enough. The nomination still stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "nuke patrol" jab is 100% true, I'm sick and tired of seeing good articles deleted because some people choose to be pricks and call "irrelevant" whatever they don't get. Also, I see this strong "big corp" bias around here: I mean, if Nintendo announced a new Zelda or whatever, you can bet there would be an article about it as soon as they revealed the tiniest bit of information. But since this is from a small indie team, no, it's not notable... regardless of the developer's or publisher's proven track records, regardless of how much info has been released up to now, regardless of how much coverage the game already got. So my vote is, KEEP this goddamn article. --Stormwatch (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the sake of argument, I'll point out that being a game from a large publisher doesn't automatically give it notability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - some of the sources listed above don't pass WP:RS, and some are just re-hashes of the fact that the game was announced, but a few actually cover more than a simple announcement. Could have done without the incivility in the AfD, though. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I agree with Teancum. As a side comment, after reading a couple of related commentary, if I didn't participate in a similar AFD and was not a nice guy, I would have issued some blocks. I am very disappointed in the conduct by a few of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedSpotGames and this AFD. –MuZemike 22:44, 6 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ So what do you want us to do now? Relist the websites that assert the noteablility?

Rudeness doesn't help the situation, and you've already noted to keep earlier. --Teancum (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm also in agreement with Teancum. I feel like notability could be a bit more well established, however. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2011 (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.