Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Crime Squad (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Crime Squad
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, web-published game. No notable reviews found. Content of article is all in-universe. Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Covering the content of the game is something different. "in-universe" as described in guidelines is supposed to apply to the viewpoint of the author. This author clearly states it is a game and there is a player, so in-universe does not apply. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I'm finding a lot of references out there, but no reliable sources. For a game that this many people seem to have played, I'm wondering if there might be some offline sourcing. It seems to have recently been updated, given some of the forum posts I found.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The first AFD was closed "Delete" back in 2006. Pretty long ago but if it's the same or almost the same then G4 might apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Fails WP:Notability due to the extensive coverage being either trivial, unreliable, or non-third party material. I find it shocking that a game with these political undertones and controversial nature has not garnered any media attention, so I'm not strongly supporting a delete, as if such material were found, I would support keeping the article. However, as it stands, I must recommend deleting the article for lack of notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - lets wait on it, this is developing momentum (its and old game that is being re-discovered), and sources will improve. Lets revisit in a few. Compared to poke-cruft, this is a valuable addition, in particular to understand the rogue-like gaming area.--Cerejota (talk) 04:15, 14 January 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.