Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Nation


 * 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. As explained by the nominator; those arguing otherwise fail to substantially address the issue of sourcing required by the consensually adopted guideline WP:N and its variants; see also WP:ILIKEIT. Sandstein 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cthulhu Nation

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I was originally going to prod this, but there are two "reviews" linked at the bottom, so technically it should be brought here. This review is not actually a review at all, and this is user submitted. Reliable sources should be non-trivial, independent, and should have to go through an editorial process. Verifiability issues, and doesn't meet WP:WEB. I could find no reliable sources on Google. Wafulz 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, Kingdom of Loathing has an article and so should this one. Both are the same kind of thing. Mathmo Talk 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing to other articles is no reason to keep it.--Dacium 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. One review is from non-notable site. Another is just a random user 10/10 review. Nothing else to assert notibility.--Dacium 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't appear it has any reliable published information about it. Wickethewok 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm confused as to why a review of a game some how makes the game worth being included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. This game currently has over 4,700 registered players and has been around for a couple years. That would seem to be enough to let it stay.
 * Additionally, if no one has looked, there are very few reviews - anywhere - for any type of browser-based online games. Does that mean that any browser-based game has to work uphill to be posted on Wikipedia?
 * As for "article comparisons," of course it matters if this article is identical to another that isn't deleted, as that Kingdom of Loathing article has no reviews connected to it either. If you don't compare articles, and some pass through via one set of rules, some others, you don't have a comprehensive set of standards. You just have the random whims of "editors," which isn't going to lend any credibility to Wikipedia... PseudoSherlock
 * We're looking for reliable sources to base the article upon- Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. If Kingdom of Loathing doesn't have any sources, I'll probably nominate it at some point too. And to answer your question: Does that mean that any browser-based game has to work uphill to be posted on Wikipedia? Yes, this is pretty much how it goes-articles are a reflection of the number of sources presented. We also have tons of rules for every topic- every article must meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Internet-based articles must meet WP:WEB, biographies must meet WP:BIO, and there are numerous requirements for other topics too. This nomination isn't based on a whim- it's based on policies and guidelines. --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dacium. Edison 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB 82.13.43.180 12:42, 22 January 2007 (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.