Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFL (Wii)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AFL (Wii)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable unreleased video game, only references provided are from its developer. Wuh Wuz  Dat  07:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a lot of third-party souces and community discussion. Good secondary source coverage. -- TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Community discussion doesn't help us, but if you have located reliable secondary sources please can you link to them? Marasmusine (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this as a separate game from the Xbox / playstation game because from what I read on the external sources the game appears to be completely different. Additionally, if it were deleted, of the many games of the AFL franchise I believe this would be the first NOT to have a wikipedia article. It would also be the first to not have one when unreleased, during the timeframe of Wikipedia & AFL game releases. Furthermore, in comparison to previous titles of the franchise, this and its sister game appear (albeit only according to the developers) to be broader / larger titles then previous ones from the franchise. I also disagree with the assertion here that only having sources from the developer makes an article worthy of delete. In the case of video games a lot of publication / discussion does occur online so it is easy to verify if there is tertiary discussion etc. But in the case of games franchises dedicated for Australia there is a reasonable amount of non-web press but the community focused on grabbing these references is small so deleting an article, that already has tertiary references before further ones are added on the grounds that it is not notable enough to exist seems a bit rash.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we're to keep this article, I'd like to have some more sources - and, as noted, none are apparent. I'm still confused as to why this game is separate from AFL Live, if they are indeed versions of the same game - if this is to be deleted, some mention there would be in order. AFL Live also has more sources; perhaps some of those mention the Wii version? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - could not find any coverage beyond the Wicked Witch press release. Consider checking for reviews at the release date, and recreate if necessary. In the meantime, this title is listed at AFL (video game series). Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist, therefore this should be deleted until after it is released and the coverage exists. Mtking (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment - More sources have been added and I believe there is now more than enough content to keep this article. There are now five external references to AFL Wii other than the developer. They are Aussie Nintendo, MMGM, Tsumea, Tru Blu and Big Footy. In fact there are now more references than AFL Live, more content and more external references. The Age reference on the AFL Live page is an interview with the CEO of BigAnt and serves as nothing more than a press release.
 * Aussie-Nintendo and MMGN have merely published some screenshots released by Tru Blu. The information at Tseumea is a press release. Big Footy is a forum, not a reliable source. Tru Blu is the game publisher. None of these remotely satisfy the requirements mentioned above. Marasmusine (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are screenshots of the game AFL Wii on Aussie-Nintendo and MMGM. They also point out some key information. Aussie Nintendo states the AFL Wii is being developed, not ported by Wicked Witch. This means it is a different game than AFL Live as that is developed by BigAnt Studios. MMGM at the bottom of the page of screenshots goes on to mention that AFL Wii while similar in content is a different game, a point in contention here. If you are unwilling to accept the Tru Blu reference then this also applies to the AFL Live references. As such AFL Live would only have one valid reference (PS3 MMGM preview) as the "Game" release date is just the store product purchase and the Big League age article is nothing more than a press release by BigAnt CEO Ross. If store purchase points are valid I am happy to add these to AFL Wii. I am also happy for AFL Wii to still be under review but would this not suggest that AFL Live would also come under review? If AFL Live is acceptable I ask again that Admin please remove this tag for deletion. Raycd21 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Raycd21


 * I have also added in a reference to IGN which should satisfy the requirements above. Raycd21 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Raycd21


 * Keep - The two games are separate made by different developers. AFL Wii is not a port of AFL Live to the Nintendo Wii. They have different titles and box covers because they are different games. As Senor Freebie has mentioned the only similarities are A - timing, B - publisher, C - subject.

Admin please remove tag for deletion. Thanks Raycd21 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.