Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdventureQuest (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AdventureQuest
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only reviewed on seemingly obscure sites. See Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination). Pcap ping  16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (I think the sources found below are adequate. 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears that the nominator has uncovered a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of sorts.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I just !voted on the "List of characters" page for this game but I didn't realise that the game itself was up for Afd as well. But since I see no reason to keep this article for any encyclopedic value, I have to agree with the previous !votes and say, delete.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (sock of banned user 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable game. Does have mainstream reviews, such as About.com: http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_AdventureQ.htm Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the above is a RS, as is . I opened a discussion on one of the other review sites on WP:VG/S. IGN also copied four press releases for the game, something they don't do a lot, though copied press releases don't count for WP:N. User:Krator (t c) 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the IGN interview isn't some kind of joke? "Artix: Well, we wanted to have elite 40 man raids, but then we realized it was a single-player game." Wuh? "Galanoth: There are a over 1,000 monsters", then later.. "Galanoth:  Over 750 of our monster models are unique." - so, what, the other 250 are copied from other games? But, I suppose about.com and ign are two sources that we regularly use, so this would satisfy the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the game doesn't have to be good to have an article here. We can have an article about crappy games as long as they received independent coverage in reliable sources. It does seem to have a fanbase though: there's an entire wikia about it, with hundreds of pages; see Articles for deletion/List of characters in AdventureQuest Pcap ping  01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect the distinction between 1000 monsters and 750 unique monsters is that at least 250 monsters are just minor color or texture changes to another monster's model. The difference between a red dragon and white dragon is the color scheme and the effects they generate, but the model is basically the same. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing by Artix Entertainment appears to be notable per our various policies. Most of the references in the article come from one website, which is definitely not independent of the game itself. I think we can say goodbye to any and all articles regarding this company.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This 2008 book published by the FT Press states that the game receives 6.5 million users per month and has partnered with more than 90 advertisers. This and other reliable sources which are but a Google away, makes this a notable game.  This isn't a case for AFD, it's case for cleanup - there's too much in universe minutiae, it may be better to merge this with all other Artix Entertainment properties into one shorter article. - hahnch e n 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Otherwise the time and efforts of hundreds upon hundreds of editors, including me, will be wasted unneedlessly. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2010 (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.