Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Cube (video game)


 * 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. Yes, !votes from a "random IP" are taken into account, depending on the strength of the argument advanced. "There are no sources" is a better argument for delete than "It actually exists" is for keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic Cube (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No citations, no indication of why this game is of real-world importance to include on Wikipedia, page has been orphaned for a year ~ QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the game actually exists Str8cash (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nota bene: --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just because a game is unlicensed doesn't mean it's not notable. Pirated games that are notable in the gaming community are just as important as Final Fantasy IV or Chrono Trigger. GVnayR (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete while being game being pirated does not mean that an article cannot meet the notaibilty guidlines the fact that there are no sources whatsoever is another story. If this game is seen as important as the other two games listed it should not be hard to find several soucres covering it.--76.69.171.174 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Do Deletes count if it's from a random IP? Str8cash (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - "It exists" is not enough to qualify for an article. Notability amongst the gaming community is not relevant. The article does not demonstrate where the game has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. Per the WP:GNG, a subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 14:59, 4 March 2010 (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.