Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incursion: Halls of the Goblin King


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incursion: Halls of the Goblin King

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

Non notable software. No notability indicated in article. Provide sources or evidence of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - an as yet to be finished game with no coverage in reliable sources. There's gaming forum discussions, but that's not reliable sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Google search shows only results in game forms, that does not make it worthy of an article. DinosaurDan (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is DinosaurDan's third edit.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Smallman12q - I'm sure DinosaurDan will have many more edits. You don't need to say his edit count in every single discussion. (Not trying to be mean here, but we're discussing articles!) :) Versus22 talk 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not criticizing dinosaurdan...but its rather unusual to see an editor make there first edit in AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks official sources, fails WP:N, WP:V, + WP:RS. Versus22 talk 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: While it is perfectly okay to say an article needs sources, an article lacking is unverified, which is significantly different from unverifiable. Rather than focusing on the article's current state commenters should attempt to find sources prior to nominating (see WP:BEFORE, Deletion policy and WP:AFD). - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which sources would you include? WP:BEFORE is not a trump card that can be used for any afd. This is a particularly bad one since there haven't been any presented sources. WP:Before is a kind suggestion, not a policy. If you believe this article is worthy of inclusion, please add those citations to the article and indicate you did so here. I'm certainly not gunning to get rid of this article, or any other ones, if they meet the criteria for inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment was directed at the nominator. The nomination specifically calls out that there are no sources in the article, but then does not indicate what action the nominator took to address this before nominating for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's me. Typically I'll google search and see what comes up, this eliminates most false hits. If the article has other indica of credibility, I may dig further, using other databases available to me. I look harder for some articles than I do for others based on the impression I get. This is why AFD is such a valuable process, because the original nominator only needs to bring attention to the subject. I didn't nominate this article just because it didn't have sources, but because it didn't look notable, and it didn't have sources, and after looking, I didn't find sources. Hopefully that helps explain more. Sorry if I cam across as dismissive. I maybe should have been more clear about my process in the beginning. As a general rule though, most AFDs follow this format, and so long as they don't systemically waste time pursuing debates on clearly notable articles, I don't think there's a problem with it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - When I nominate for AFD, I usually indicate what sort of search or effort I've already put into correcting the problem to forestall these types of discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of notability and no reliable sources. A game (or any software) would have to be spectacularly notable to get an article while still in alpha testing(!), and by all evidence this isn't even close. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Non-notable game still in beginning stages of development, no coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 March 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.