Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armored Fist 3


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Armored Fist 3

 * – ( View AfD View log )

To kick off the discussion: While I'm sure enough material could be found to expand this article beyond the current single sentence, it's unlikely it will ever satisfy WP:GNG. The odd review or 2 in industry-focused publications does NOT constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 108.67.153.215 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:108.67.153.215, who cannot start this page due to being an IP. I have no opinion either way. Reyk YO!  06:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Besides the ubiquitous download sites, the best I could find was a couple more reviews . Those reviews appear much more high profile than a lot of software that survives AfD.  If the CNN review is really CNN, then I would have expected there should be more reviews? Is it possible there are some from sources unavailable online?  In the absence of more coverage however, I’m minded to think that we don’t have enough to grant notability.Pit-yacker (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Create Armored Fist series article/Redirect to NovaLogic, enough sourcing exists for something about the game or the series on WP. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Novalogic article seems reasonable. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It has received coverage in a variety of reliable, third party sources.
 * Gamespot
 * IGN
 * CNN
 * GameSpy
 * Allgame, x2
 * It didn't take very long to find these, so I can't help but think there's plenty more out there too... Sergecross73   msg me   19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As explained in the nomination, reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage. Could you explain why you think this case is different? Preferably with specific reference to Wikipedia policy? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, I'd like you to point me in the direction of this "reviews don't really count" guideline. I've never found that to be true at AFD. Here's what matters: They are independent, third party, reliable sources. They are dedicated to the topic at hand, it's not just a passing mention. That's enough to establish notability. Sergecross73   msg me   14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's unfortunate that you don't understand WP:GNG. You'll note I said nothing about reviews being reliable or independent sources, so you're clearly trying to obfuscate the issue. No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold. Personally I'd like to see the quality of games-related articles improved, and deleting non-notable articles is an important step in that. But, whatever, keep games in the ghetto if you care so little. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold." Really? Because it looks like a number of experienced editors have !voted "keep", and with good rationale, so that statement seems rather ridiculous. Judging by the way you spoke entirely in generalities, and then vaguely referenced the GNG, I'm thinking there really isn't anything here left to argue here. It's great you want to improve wikipedia, but remember, we're using Wikipedia's standards, not your personal ones... Sergecross73   msg me   13:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per reviews. "reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage." That's nonsense. IP, according to what? SL93 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe try reading them sometime? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No guideline says anything about reviews. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have now completely rewritten the article, using the 5 reliable sources used above. Started a reception section as well. The sources contain a lot more information about the gameplay itself, but I'll leave that for someone else to write. (I have no interest or prior knowledge in this game, or Tanks in general, so I think I've pretty much exhausted my motivation for this article at this point.) Anyways, clearly passes the WP:GNG now. Sergecross73   msg me   18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- Per Sergecross73's excellent source hunting and rewrite. Reyk  YO!  21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73's good work. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; subject meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow  Talk 21:36, 1 February 2012 (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.