Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotr castle wars


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lotr castle wars
Tagged for speedy on the entirely accurate grounds that "Advert for non-notible (0 Google hits) fancruft add-on for Warcraft, speedy notice removed once.". The only problem is, that is not a speedy criterion. So: we have before us a Warcraft II fanmod of absolutely no provable significance, original research from beinning to end and citing no (0) sources, a count which apparently neatly matches its Google hits. As an added bonus, it also violates WP:VAIN since the article, like the game, is the work of User:Emperor_Jackal. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; although I was able to find two Google hits, it still is about a non-notable Warcraft III custom add-on. Besides, not claiming notability is even a reason for speedy deletion. --Huon 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per voting at Articles for deletion/Enfo's Team Survival, Articles for deletion/Tides of blood, Articles for deletion/Attack of the Alliance and just about every afd where the article in question is a custom game made by some buddies in their basement. tmopkisn tlka 23:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not as popular as Dota and Eota. -ScotchMB 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment So why vote delete because it isn't as popular as something. (look up) -Emperor Jackal


 * Delete and Comment It has nothing to do with popularity, but with notoriety. (If you've noticed, we have an article on Gigli. 'nuff said.) Even though it's not yet Wikipedia policy, WP:SOFTWARE pretty much follows the established notoriety guidelines like WP:BAND and WP:BIO which mandate that the article's subject must be in the public eye. A grand total of two Google hits, neither of them a review or write-up by a moderate-to major media source, comes nowhere close to this threshold. Pat Payne 14:13, 26 July 2006 (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.