Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabellum (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Parabellum (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Development was cancelled, the game was never released. No notability, no sources beyond standard promo hype. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete ascanceled game with no secondary sources besides previews and, arguably, interviews. Any content would be mostly primary and non-critical of the actual product (CGI doesn't really count as game). Here's another source to add to IGN one, that might pass GNG for non-canceled game. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, a cancelled video game with no real notability. The only source is a promotional article. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a canceled FPS and the supposed online version is vaporware. -- NINTENDUDE 64 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are multiple reliable sources covering this. There are articles on Gamespot and IGN.  We cover other cancelled games such as Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Fortress (Square Enix). - hahnch e n 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Even with the sources noted by Hahnchen, the first is a single sentence of text, and thus hardly significant, and the 2nd is of the same publisher as the source in the text, and hence, even if the IGN deemed significant is just a single source, not meeting the multiple source guidelines in GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2012 (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.