Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Lancer


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Active Lancer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable Game. I would have filed a speedy delete except there was no such option haha. Dengero (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability.Synchronism (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Eastmain (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain's improvements, notability is established. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of the references are by the same person. In none of the references is it described by itself, all are announcing releases of several games. As I said, notability is not indicated by the article.  Are there any favorable reviews noting public interest in this game?  The article itself states it was an unsuccessful game.Synchronism (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The references still represent significant coverage, even if other games are discussed in the same references. {{WP:N]] says: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." -- Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The guidelines state that the coverage must be non-trivial. The provided sources, and the other references I found in a gsearch are all trivial, short reviews among many or sites to download the game.  This fails the notability standards, unless a better, non-trivial reference can be found.  Theseeker4 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any rationale for deletion. No assertion of importance might work for speedy, but for an AFD some indication that sources were looked for first would be helpful, since notability is the issue. Though I'd agree that what is in effect a single source does not cut the mustard in relation to reception, there's an in-depth review on Inside Mac Games which google spat out as the first result when I searched for the game's name along with 'game' and 'review'. Someoneanother 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm happy with the MacWorld and InsideMacGames reviews as they appear to be reliable sources, and are substantial enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The NYT ref was merely a publisher's description, so I have removed it. Marasmusine (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete — If additional sources can be found besides the good coverage from MacWorld, I'll be happy to change to keep. However, the general notability guideline recommends multiple sources, so I am inclined to side on the deletion side for now. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the inside mac games review above? Someoneanother 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nothing wrong with the core of this article, just needs improving. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is sufficiently cited. Icewedge (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2008 (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.