Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Online


 * 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. JForget 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hero Online

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:WEB, WP:REF, WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - nomination statement is inaccurate, as I made clear when dePRODing. A quick GNews search finds 26 News stories about the game from a variety of sources around the planet.  A secondary GNews search reveals 58 articles with some false positives.  Clearly the game meets criteria #1 of WP:WEB.  WP:REF points to information about how to cite sources and can't be "failed."  The idea that this very well known game fails WP:V is laughable - individual lines in the article might, but that is a question of editing not a reason for deletion. Certainly the article needs some editing to be less game guide and more encyclopedia, but that isn't a question for AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, there are plenty of search results, but none of them are reliable sources. WikiProject Video games has a suggested source guide that interested editors may wish to check out.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems several of the news stories are from sites listed on the suggested source guide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice any substantial articles from the list, would you mind pointing them out? I could simply be overlooking them, I'll admit that.  It looks like this AfD is strongly leaning towards keep, so you don't have to go to the trouble if you don't want.  :)  Cheers!  Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gameplanet is the one I remember off hand --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that one. Normally, I would agree that it's a valid source, but in this case I feel the reference is too short to count.  WP:NOTE specifically requires "Significant coverage" and WP:WEB excludes "Trivial coverage" (probably the same thing in the end, of course).  I do realize that one man's significant coverage is another man's trivial coverage, which brings us to AfDs like this!  It seems like there are plenty of people who feel the coverage is sufficient, so maybe I should re-evaluate what I believe is significant.  Cheers!  Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How are a bunch of news stories not reliable? Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they're often not reliable, third party, or reputable. Especially when it comes to video games, many of the sites simply repost press releases, have questionable "guest" editors, or are blogs.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources aren't reliable in those searches and why? Did you even look through them? Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read them, and I don't find any of them to be reliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Mr. B. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – of those above searches, there are a couple of secondary reliable sources that can establish some notability, like this web/print magazine source (in French) and this online article  (in Russian). MuZemike 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of these news sources are from a MMO site that list every single MMO in existence, or even under development. You got more than two screenshots, you get mentioned.  The one in Fantasy Magazine looks credible though.   D r e a m Focus  21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus Hobit (talk) 17:26, 7 August 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.