Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonFable (6th nomination)


 * 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. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DragonFable
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I deprodded this video game after I found one relatively short review on about.com I felt it deserves a discussion. (Besides, I see it has been brought to AfD before, so a prod was procedurally invalid.) Pcap ping  06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, a review here (click "full review"). Pcap ping  06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note- The rationale for the proposed deletion was unsourced article, questionable notability. --Taelus (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Does not appear to be sourceable or notable. I also suspect that that it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material, since the previous two AfDs ended in clear consensus to delete. Perhaps an admin could check the previous versions to see if this is the case? Reyk  YO!  23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: http://www.netzwelt.de/download/7030-dragonfable.html its german and a description + small review of the game, can it be used as reference? GBK2010 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this particular online magazine so I can't judge how reliable it is. But since it offers the game as a download I think it might have interest in promoting the game; that is, I doubt if it is an independent source, which we need to establish notability. Reyk  YO!  02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am familar with netzwelt. It's a fairly high profile German site (top 100 or so, see their "press" page, Alexa ranking, etc.) The reviews on their download pages are written by their staff, not copies of manufacturer's description; they have a dozen writers, see their impressum. I'm not very fond of reviews on download pages because they are otften quick, "filler" takes, although the netzwelt ones are better compared to others of this kind (Softonic, CNET download pages, etc.) But, there's far more coverage in the mmohut.com review I linked above. The netzwelt coverage is rather uninformative in comparison. Also, for a video game, I expect more depth of coverage than, say, for a Zip archiver or chat client, and the netzwelt page has just about the same for all of these; it's not a game focused site. Perhaps you can tell me why the mmohut.com review is unreliable in exchange. :-) Pcap ping  03:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't speedy delete — I've checked the deleted revisions, and this is radically different. While this is a bit of a game guide, it's far more encyclopedic than the deleted versions, which are almost exclusively game guides.  Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Artix Entertainment, if it is kept. About.com - Andre Haas, again, etc? :> This is fairly feeble coverage, but enough for verifiability. MMOHut - I'm not happy about the reliability of this as a source, as I've detailed at WP:VG/RS. Netzwelt - Ran this through Babel. Reads like an advert, they have nothing critical to say, and the site is ran in association with AOL Advertising. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (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.