Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aveyond series


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aveyond series
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous AfD closed as rename under the assumption that the games themselves had independent notability but that the company did not. I think neither does and in fact it would be strange if one did and the other did not. The game review sites are not reliable enough sources to secure notability, and these concerns have not been addressed since the previous AFD. Andre (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Andre (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aren't reviews from notable sites the usual "notability establishing thing" for minor games? I don't think it's too out of the ordinary for a company's work to be notable and not the company itself either, it seems like the logical situation for indie creators and other companies that've produced only a few works. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the objection is source reliability, let's go down the list, shall we?
 * Game Tunnel: Reliable, and a major source of indie game reviews.
 * CNet (by way of Download.com): Reliable per WP:VG/RS, owned by CBS.
 * GrrlGamer: Currently domain parked. Probably should be removed.
 * RPGVault: Reliable per WP:VG/RS, owned by IGN.
 * Walz Music: Primary source.
 * Game Chronicles: Listed as unreliable on VG/RS per a discussion here.
 * AceGamez: Probably reliable: Has an editor.
 * Gamezebo: Listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS per this discussion
 * Netjak: Link isn't working atm, but a quick search indicates it's cited in multiple other articles, including an FA: Half-Life 2.
 * RPGFan: a long discussion here is inconclusive, but it's used in a whole buncha FAs.
 * So that's at least two indisputably reliable sources and several other sources I'd call "good enough" for use. Keep. Nifboy (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - All sources used to establish notability have been validated through WP:VG/S during the previous AfD, and there were no concerns left to address after the article on the company was pruned of the non-Aveyond games. If there are issues with the sources, the proper way is to get consensus at WP:VG/S to invalidate them first. We have a major wikiproject that has gone through the pain of reviewing and maintaining a list of sources, selectively disregarding their findings at individual AfDs is not the way to go, in particular since any findings may affect plenty other articles. MLauba (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The facts  are this, the article has surivived deletion nomination on the grounds that it is adequately sourced and has established notability for the games.  Many references as notable. Sure this article can been improved and through the last afd discussion, was improved. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep The references are fine, it clearly notable. And the nominators claims about the last AFD is ridiculous.  Everyone said Keep back then too, the nominator the only one trying to delete it both times.   D r e a m Focus  21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable, lots of RS, no indication that it should be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – pretty much per everyone else. I can't add much else here. MuZemike 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced, notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:39, 11 October 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.