Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player Attack


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Player Attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It was nominated for two small awards categories but didn't win either. It had only one substantial hit in a video game reliable sources custom Google search:. All in all, there isn't enough to write an article, and as it stands, it's all sourced to primary sources. The TV part could redirect to Aurora, but I don't think it's worth it. And while MCV Pacific has a profile on Citizen, I don't think she has enough coverage for her own article either. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  czar  21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as despite accepting this, I still question whether it's solidly notable and nothing else here suggests better. Also notifying AfC reviewers  and .  SwisterTwister   talk  06:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually it was who accepted the draft.  merely moved it to the draft space during the AFC migration. It appears both  and I reviewed this article when it was an AFC and chose to decline it. That being said, it's hard to judge sometimes whether an article would survive AFD so I don't see this particular close as being problematic. The title of this website makes it particularly difficult to evaluate in a WP:BEFORE search because "player attack" is used in a wide array of contexts. Inside the article there are a few sources that cover the topic but nothing that I would deem significant coverage. Some of the sources are now deadlinks and the rest of the sources are primary. Overall I would say the number of sources was probably below the threshold of WP:WEBCRIT.  Mkdw talk 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or move back to AfC. A look for sourcing brings up little. The website is moderately popular and has a moderate fanbase on social media sites, but nothing major. Now I'm mentioning this last part because while popularity doesn't set notability on Wikipedia, the amount of popularity - or lack thereof - can be a good indication of whether or not the sourcing is out there. As far as the claims in the article goes, neither of the awards appear to be major. A search for either doesn't bring up much coverage of either award, which indicates that they'd be minor at best and it'd be questionable as to whether or not they could give partial notability even if PA had won, which they didn't. (Only wins give notability.) As far as the TV claims go, a look at the channels shows that they're both the type of local channel that allows anyone to submit and air content. They're not discerning, by which I mean that showing on Face TV is not the same as showing on a channel that airs nationally and is watched by billions of Australians. This doesn't mean that it's not impressive that they have content and aired it, but it's not the type of thing that'd give automatic notability on Wikipedia when you're airing on a channel that accepts content on a first come, first serve basis - meaning that they'll accept anyone that can pay and has content that follows their guidelines. I have no problem with this going back to AfC, but this is likely going to be years before this site is really ready for the mainspace. I think it's likely that they will eventually pass NWEB in the future if they keep on at the rate they're going, but right now it's just far, far too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:59, 3 January 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.