Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Crossing: Online


 * 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   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal Crossing: Online

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

Contested prod. Article about an online game that is about to shut down. No assertion of notability, and no available data on Alexa. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. The fact it is closing has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. If it has any notability, the closing will not make it disappear. - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Totally NN.  JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, no signs that this unauthorized game is notable.  TJ   Spyke   06:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The game ran for 7 years and is connected to a notable franchise. The fact it's shutting down has no basis on notability. I can't find anything in the article that indicates it is unauthorized and that again isn't criteria for deletion. Article needs revision, definitely. Alternately, I'm fine with merging it with the main Animal Crossing article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was nothing more than a non-notable fan site, one that shut down quite some time ago (it's down now, but a search of the Internet Archive shows the domain expired in March 2007 and became a Amazon Partners page). It also says it was not affiliated with Nintendo (http://web.archive.org/web/20050516002553/http://www.animalcrossingonline.com/). It ran for 4 years and there is no indication in the article that it was ever notable.  TJ   Spyke   23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly written/Nonsense. This should have been tagged for speedy deletion, as it looks almost looks like someone vandalized the article, including here . Versus22 talk 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per failing both WP:N and several aspects of What Wikipedia is not. Reads like an advertisement (not exactly of the blatant nature that would warrant G11, however), someone's web page, and a directory entry. Article would basically need a complete rewrite to become anywhere near encyclopedic, not to mention it also needs to meet notability standards, which apparently doesn't. MuZemike 19:38, 20 January 2009 (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.