Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotic Shadow Warriors


 * 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   merge to Chaotic (TV series). J04n(talk page) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Chaotic Shadow Warriors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering the Plot, Gameplay and Reception have nothing except for 'expansion' in them and i'm not sure if GameFAQs is an allowed source I think it's worth sending to AfD. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep per WP:GNG changed to Merge and redirect to Chaotic (TV series). The game has received full-length feature reviews at IGN, Worth Playing, Cheat Code Central and a Giant Bomb review (though I think the last one is not by editorial staff). I've added them to the article. Diego (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The GiantBomb source presented is a random user-generated one, not part of their editorial staff, and is thus not a reliable, third party source. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain Cheat Code Central isn't considered reliable either. (Also, to answer the nominator's question, no, Gamefaqs isn't useable, because anyone can submit information with no real editorial oversight.) Sergecross73   [User talk:Sergecross73| msg me ]]  14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks Serge. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, only the IGN article comes from a reliable source. The content and the reference could be put as a section at the TV series, though. Diego (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An easy way to identify a Giant Bomb user review is to look at the URL and author. User reviews have "user-reviews" in the URL and the author is identified by username rather than real name. Reach Out to the Truth 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article is not notable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge / Redirect - Finally had the chance to do some research, and found that:
 * Worthplaying is also currently deemed "Not Reliable" per discussions at WP:VG/S.
 * Apparently, Xbox Magazine reviewed it too.
 * That leaves us with only 2 real sources that aren't database entries or press releases. Usually 4-5 are needed to warrant a "Keep" stance.
 * It does seem like a viable search topic, and certainly relevant to the related animation's article, which seems notable. So I favor it being redirected back to the animation, merging anything of use. Sergecross73   msg me   16:03, 2 April 2013 (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.