Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb-3D (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 delete. czar 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Orb-3D
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AFD was closed early due to some copyright issues, but the rationale is still valid, especially in this most recent iteration; this is simply one user placing their OR about a game they played onto Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is horrendously terrible, no doubt, but a quick google search pops up reviews, which should establish sufficient notability. This article could use some huge cleanup, but it does provide a skeleton from which to progress, so WP:TNT does not apply. Fieari (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - can you identify which reviews in particular are ones you feel are reliable sources? So far, I've only seen one review that even marginally looks possible - from Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then, the current consensus on that websites usability is pretty iffy in this situation - at WP:VG/S, its one that is usable depending on the author. The article was written by someone named "Sotenga", who doesn't have much in the way of credentials, and even then, that's only one source. I also disagree with your notion of the current article "providing a skeleton" to start off of - the article currently contains no sources, no structure, no section titles, no infobox, no categories, no real formatting. Its just a blob of someone's personal, informal musings on the game. The article creator even admits as much. It far more resembles a messageboard post from Gamefaqs than an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - per my comments above, and lack of any rebuttal. Article is currently unsourced, only one marginal one was found, and the article is so informally/poorly written that we may as well WP:TNT even if things are dug up someday. Sergecross73   msg me  15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not satisfy WP:RS, and even the Hardcore Gaming 101 source is a bit dodgy on whether to classify as an RS. However, the style of writing doesn't suggest that it qualifies for a G11 speedy delete in any way. Hx7 14:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, the prior version of the article deleted in Oct 2015 was deleted per WP:G12 (copyright violation), not WP:G11 (overtly promotional language). At the time, this was correct, that version had clearly been ripped from another website. No one asserts that G11 nor G12 apply anymore though; the article is now just a general sort of poorly written. Sergecross73   msg me  18:44, 12 July 2016 (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.