Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of the Red Dragon


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Legend of the Red Dragon

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

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with notability tag since November 2008. --Peephole (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing the nomination, inclusion criteria seem to have been met. --Peephole (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB does not apply, as LORD is not web-specific content. --Hawke666 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. WP:CORP. --Peephole (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that WP:CORP applies either. This is a software product, not a company or organization. Deletition could only come from lack of general notability, WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As for notability, The reliable web site MobyGames has : "In addition to being arguably the most popular BBS door game ever, LORD earned the distinction of being awarded Clark Development Co.'s (PCBoard) "Door of the Year" award for 1995. You can see this humble plaque on Robinson Technologies' site at http://www.rtsoft.com/graphics/l-award.gif" .DGG (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that award might sound more impressive than it is. Clark Development Corporation was the developer of PCBoard (BBS system). So this might just be a case of a company giving an award to someone for using their product. --Peephole (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be prepared to say that the notability is there from the first sentence in my quote without even the award. DGG (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh.. unless LORD's creator ran a PCBoard BBS, that is actually kind of backwards. The game did not use BBS software. BBS software (PCBoard, Wildcat, RemoteAccess, etc, etc) of any maker used the game (and other door games). Outsider80 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Peephole, LORD was functioning as kind of plug-in for PCBoard BBS software. So you can look at this award as a "best plug-in award", or something like that.--RockyMM (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP KEEP KEEP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.140.55 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: user provides no reason behind said rationale. MuZemike 16:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a notable game from the BBS days. Brief mentions in a book, three scholarly papers, a GameSetWatch interview and GameTunnel. A full article in The Escapist, a non-trivial mention on Gamasutra and a nice review on Destructoid (though this last one doesn't count for anything since it's a user blog). I'm surprised there's not more :(. SharkD (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The other sources don't seem significant enough or reliable (student papers) but The Escapist and Gamasutra ones seem ok. I'll withdraw the afd.--Peephole (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per SharkD  Th e S te ve   13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly most famous door game of the BBS era, before WWW was a household name. Outsider80 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep SharkD and DGG established notability of LORD. Historical moment of LORD makes it poorly refenced on the web, but it was pretty much well known in BBS community. Not saying that LORD's notability is temporary. There are still enough references about it to make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --RockyMM (talk) 10:29, 1 February 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.