Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Warfare (second 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 Keep. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Warfare

 * — (View AfD)

extension of --does it warrant a entry? howdy i agree with the sirFozzie but to continue discussion are those third party sources noteworthy and reputable sources ?Joepenny 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment According to his user page, The user who created this AfD is currently blocked indefinitely with a note that they are a suspected sock of User:JB196, who is blocked indefinitely due to sock-puppetry and making abusive/libelous edits. Editors:  please hold AfD to additional scrutiny. Tarinth 04:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It's legitimate game series and it's very well known among internet wrestling fans. The last entry in the freeware series is still played and modified to this day, despite being years old, and the upcoming update to the newer commercial series is highly anticipated although not as popular as the EWR release. There are multiple fan modding sites for these games, and there have been reviews by some gaming websites. How is this any less legitimate than an article on the resident evil series of games, or Legend of the Green Dragon? VampyreDark
 * Strong Keep Multiple Third Party reviews, long running game series, satisfies WP:V and WP:N SirFozzie 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading the reviews, it looks like most of the Wikipedia articles is not sourced from them, but is either from the publisher or is original research. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  strong delete wow, i didnt think he could get any more worthless, but he just did. lol.  the game is not widely known or distributed.  although the game is cited, it seems like a waste of bandwith, come to speak of it has anyone started an article on the lemonade stand game on [bored.com] that would be a more worthwhile article then this...or the popping bubblewrap game.--Juju 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SirFozzie  P.B. Pilh e  t  /  Talk  03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep extent of distribution isn't a really limiting factor in determining notability, the game has received independent reviews. Juju's comments about also sound like an outrageous personal attack ("waste of bandwidth," "worthless"), possibly colored by a personal opinion of the products in question.  Tarinth 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the same reason as the above Adam 'whoever' NN MiracleMat 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Fancruft? Um.. please explain Wile E. Notabilitiy and Verifiability is satisfied, where are you getting fancruft from? 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per SirFozzie. VegaDark 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per SirFozzie. Hero1701 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SirFozzie. --- RockMFR 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. IGN, Gamespot , and GameFAQs all have independent reviews. It seems like a notable software series. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SirFozzle --Sturm55 12:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Long running well known freeware game.
 * Strong Keep I don't think this is even a debate. Journalis 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Had this still been the free game it was a few years ago, I'd go with delete. But it's since been picked up by a publisher and is in the shops. Sure it may not be as well known as Uplink in the indy game scene, but the fact that it got picked up by a publisher makes it notable within the sphere of games like this. Also, Joepenny, I don;t know about you, but last time I checked, reviews on Gamespot, Cnet and IGN counted as multiple reliable sources. The Kinslayer 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was iffy at first until I saw this was picked up by a publisherand has reliable surces. 3 years ago would've been a strong delete, but it's grown enough. -- Wizardman 04:20, 4 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.