Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outbreak (online 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Outbreak (online game)

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: unremarkable game with no references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done to keep this page? If you can give us some criteria we'll do what we can. Deville Rule (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, it needs to meet WP:WEB and WP:V. Other editors may have other suggestions. You may want to read Your first article for some suggestions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, DV, we'll just have to work on getting some media articles written about Outbreak, and hopefully prod Nathan into doing some PR work. Juranas (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And by that, I meant ask media people to write an article about it.. I'm well aware references must be from an independant source. Juranas (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, just checking :> Good luck. Marasmusine (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someoneanother 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks any reliable secondary sources (reviews for instance) which demonstrate notability for web content. Indie/low-budget MMOGs are probably the most difficult type of videogame to get reviewed, even flash games get better coverage (and that's saying something), the sheer volume of them doesn't help either. It does look interesting, but until it gets some independent coverage from reliable sites/mags there's nothing to hang an article on. Someoneanother 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with same ratioanle as Someone another. I'm a bit curious about Juranas's statement about "getting some media articles written". Coverage for (WP:N) needs to be independent of the subject! Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google's giving me a various results, but most are related to a similarly-named flash game, something to do resident evil etc and very few are what we're looking for. No media coverage, external reviews etc. Seems to me to be soap boxing. Greggers (t &bull; c) 16:07, 10 April 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.