Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosby's Confederacy (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  Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed via the consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosby&

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

Does not indicate notability, has 3 ELS but no reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-08t10:46z


 * Keep: I seriously feel pity on you. All those 3 sites are pretty much reliable ooh well atleast the two sites and  and this one is a official site and there is more here, here, here, here, here and here. There you go. There is enough notability and i did ask you to use search engine before nominating for deletion.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep perfectly acceptable future game stub, the interview and above reaction's to the game's announcement via press release indicate that coverage will build and that notability will be satisfied and then some. There's a difference between an established indie developer announcing a game and some random Joe spamming his latest RPG Maker effort. Someoneanother 11:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Someoneanother 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep—nearly a weak keep because there is only one independent source cited in the article (Big Download is affiliated with AOL, so they're reliable). Based on the links SkyWalker mentioned, though, there's enough to keep the article around. If it goes vaporware and doesn't get released, we can reconsider the article's fate in a few months, but for right now, it looks like the general notability guidelines are met. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the findings by SkyWalker above. WP:GNG seems to be satisfied here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - All those links above, bar the bigdownload interview, are press releases, which WP:N states are not good for asserting notability. Considering this, I feel the "I seriously feel pity on you" comment is unfair. Multiple coverage is preferred, but we'll see how things develop after the game's release. Marasmusine (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -I have said "I seriously feel pity on you" because when that person added the prod and i removed it later on and asking him to use search engines but he did not and even adding bigdownload link he says it is unreliable. The game was just announced and information is coming slowly and plus it is releasing it on November according to their official site. Overall that is why i have said "I seriously feel pity on you". Users just can't simply send an article to afd without researching. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy I linked to states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. [...] any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Challenge 1, 2. I still see no reliable sources cited inline in the article. The "pedia" in Wikipedia stands for encyclopedia - it's not a blog or Usenet. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-11t12:03z
 * Comment: I went ahead and added a development section along with inline citations (one of which, GameDaily, is from WP:VG/S, a list of reliable sources for video game articles) to said section. Is this satisfactory? -- Nomader (Talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (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.