Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Government: NationStates


 * 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The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn and no arguments to delete. --Core desat  04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Government: NationStates

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not Notable per WP:WEB. There are no independent or verifiable sources that mention the site or even link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 February 2007 The link that GulDan showed that it was notable and had reliable and verifiable sources. Perhaps they should be added to the article ? BlackDiamonds 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A quick Google search shows there are independetn sites that talk about it: TJ Spyke 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps it could be better sourced (most of what is there is self-referential or random blogs) but it's been around long enough and should be notable enough that some useful information exists to back up the article. Arkyan 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I found one neutral source: http://www.straight.com/article-68225/winds-snow-lead-to-perfect-storm-of-sites but it doesn't say much.
 * Strong Keep as per Arkyan. Canadianshoper 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, bad-faith nomination by unhappy CyberNations people. – Chacor 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this is a major website linked to widely with tens of thousands of verified separate participants. PeterSP 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, evidence in the following link of CyberNations players openly suggesting having this page deleted out of spite.   gasponia 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep,This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard of. NationStates has been in existence for over three years and warrants several wiki pages.
 * Strong Keep NS is notable and as per above Brian | (Talk) 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep NS has been around for several years and covered by several different news sources both online and in print (I happen to own a South African Cosmopolitan, April 2006 that mentions NS one of its articles). It is also used by several educators in teaching their classes. I will continue to look for articles mentioning/covering it, but with the ephemeral nature of the web, it can be tough to dig them up.  One such is: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/statesofmind.html GulDan 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arkyan and GulDan. --Goobergunch|? 08:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment please provide credibility, or Wikip. Policy. This is not a vote. Jeff503 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...so says an unhappy CN player. Seriously, please stop trolling Wikipedia, all of you. When CN becomes notable it'll get an article . – Chacor 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have been on wikipedia for a long time. That was just a friendly reminder, but thanks for being mature about it. Now lets stop.Jeff503 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One example of NS in the news is here, where it is mentioned (though not by name) as well as CN. And no, I'm leading the effort to restore CN's article and I didn't endorse this. Don't blame the CN community, this is one person acting on his own. I would, however, recommend adding a section on NS in the news. - Pious7 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has no outside sources for it. All the links are either to Nationstates own news pages or to its forums. The ones that aren't go to the site of a fan of nationstates. If not deletion, the article is in need of links to outside neutral sources of people who do not play Nationstates or who are not biased against it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.22.228 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 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.