Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotology (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 AdamBiswanger1 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Robotology_(game)
Not notable, fails Notability_(software) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Will most likely become notable. Metanet (the creator of this game) already has a considerable fan-base. It (the fan-base) is responsible for this lengthy article on N, Metanet's first game, and they have also created over 500,000 user maps for the aforementioned N game. - Kingpin E7  I'm working on fixing it. Can't I have a little more time? - Kingpin E7 
 * Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Might be notable when it's released, might not be. Current article content says it's an excerpt from a forum (!?). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete please. Danny Lilithborne 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Ridiculous article.UberCryxic 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For the time being, it's extremely non-notable. Until that changes, it does not belong here.--Lobizón 01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can keep improving the article throughout the voting period, which normally runs for five days. If you're afraid the article might be speedy-deleted in the meantime, you can use the template , but nobody here is calling for that to happen. Please note, though, that it isn't the quality of the writing that is the main concern, it's whether an in-development Flash game should have an article in the first place. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a Flash game, if you read the article you would know it's in C++ and OpenGL. For the record, it is also a fully commercial game, and will be distributed with a price tag. - Kingpin E7 
 * Delete. Anything that says "the article will be notable in the future" is crystal ball. If you want to improve the article, Kingpin, start by addressing verifiability with reliable third-party sources. Read those articles, don't assume you understand what "reliable" is because it has a very specific meaning here. The PC Gamer article is a start (if it indeed talks about the game in detail), but 1) there's no issue number or article title, that would be a good start to put in and 2) we need at least one more source.  ColourBurst 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry Kingpin, but at this point, this game fails Notability (software). If the game does become a success when it is released, a new article can, and should, be written, but at this point, there really is nothing remarkable about this game.  It is simply one of a thousand video games under production. Resolute 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on finding that information. It might take a couple of days, thou - Kingpin E7 
 * Weak delete. It may fail the notability test, but I think that being featured in PC Gamer is fairly notable. Shadow1  (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete, but don't salt or anything. May be notable later, but not yet. · XP  · 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- Wait for more news, if none, then delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - per nom. Jpe|ob 09:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Simon Speed 22:03, 6 October 2006 (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.