Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSE Online (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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Resolute 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ROSE Online
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No third-party references have appeared since tagged last October, so currently fails WP:V. Web search shows several press releases, but no significant coverage. Cnet claims there is an editor's review at gamespot, but as far as I can tell there is nothing useful there. No reviews at other likely sites. Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, although I do have mixed feelings about this. Being that WP:SOFTWARE is now historical, by policy alone this would probably be deleted. However personally I just cannot bring myself to think this should be deleted as it is a project by a noteworthy publisher, who has produced other noteworthy titles. No doubt alot of people will hammer down after this comment with "Delete, fails ", my personal feeling is that it is a page that people will come looking for on Wikipedia, it isn't causing harm, and thus by WP:IAR it would be better to keep it for now. Please note that this is not an "I like it" keep, as I don't have any vested interest with the topic. I just spent some time trying to dig up sources, but unfortunately because ROSE Online seems to have released a new version, older reviews have been removed due to being out of date. Notability is not temporary, but I have no idea what happens on Wikipedia when old sources disappear from the internet. --Taelus (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, as it could be alot better article, its just nobody has done much to it as you said. The following things need to be fixed.
 * It is mostly in-universe stuff written by fans of the game. It looks more like a Wikia article that got moved here.
 * There are no links in the body of the article.
 * There are too many Level 2 headlines. They are unnessesary and should be merged into gameplay or something.
 * Also, that private servers section most likely shouldn't even be there. Maybe in a reception section add a sentence or two about how it is so popular that private servers have been made of the game. --Blake (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep full-sized GameZone review, Gaming Nexus review, Game Industry News review and 'one minute review' on Game Daily (the amount of material to use is much larger than the name implies). Someoneanother 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r27559.htm
 * http://www.massiveonlinegamer.com/news/reviews/104-rebecca-bundy
 * MetaCritic:
 * http://www.gamingnexus.com/Default.aspx?Section=Article&I=1155
 * http://www.gamedaily.com/games/rose-online/pc/game-reviews/review/4657/1180/
 * Google News:
 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-11266383_ITM
 * http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/si/si002054.htm
 * http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1027003/rose-players-compete-for-1000000
 * http://news.softpedia.com/news/1-MILLION-EURO-MMORPG-competition-12398.shtml — Rankiri (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of major reviews. DGG (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - I must be losing my touch as I could only see the press releases and not the reviews during my search. Still, if the net result of this discussion is an improved article then that's fine; I might work on it next week. Marasmusine (talk) 20:30, 5 July 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.