Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse Isle (game)


 * 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. Will mark for cleanup and do some myself. Mango juice talk 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Horse Isle (game)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It is mainly an advertisement for the game if nothing else. Something X (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. As the article stands, it ought to be deleted as being an advert. But I am prepared to believe that the game itself is notable, so if the advertising was to be removed I might be persuaded to change my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It just needs to be rewritten so it is less like an ad. Definitely notable however. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite per Malinaccier  Jonathan  Happy Holidays! 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Notable yes, Advertising yes. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, which is essentially WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROBLEM. Epbr123 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep this article can be fixed pretty easily. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Removing advertising tone is as difficult as running a knife through the spam, so long as there are sources to establish notability and provide material to actually write something else with, it's not necessary to delete. Someone another (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. From some brief scrounging I don't think there's enough unique, secondary, credible sources to make the game "notable"--the expired news article doesn't inspire notability from the brief snippet provided, and a mediocre review from an obscure editor on a small review site is questionably credible (same with the linked GameOgre review of one paragraph from an anonymous reviewer). The article appears to be an advertising vehicle and composed almost entirely of original research and opinion (reviews--understandable for a game, but as a source of research...?). A brief "search engine test" to see what sort of information is out there on this game seems to be mostly people looking for help in the game, with the occasional blog post review. Is there enough credible sources out there to make it notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, especially WP:WEB (as it is a web-based game)? The whole article needs a rewrite if kept. AbstractEpiphany (talk) 07:00, 16 December 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.