Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shot Online


 * 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   KEEP. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Shot Online

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

This article about an online game lacks any kind of independent sources. It's rather an in-detail decription of gameplay (WP:NOT, WP:NOT). While there are many Google hits, most are advertisements, download sites, forums and the like. Perhaps someone can supply some decent sources, so that the article can be kept (this has not happened in one year actually). But even then, removing all the unencyclopedic content would mean reducing the 30-kByte article to a one-paragraph stub, which is not terribly far from deletion; so I think it warrants a discussion here in any case. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a knife running through it, badly. However, a quick search turned up a review on AceGamez and 1up, in fact there are several reviews listed here on GameSpot - it stinks of notability, yum. Despite appearances this one was actually sold retail (like World of Warcraft) which means the mainstream publications and sites picked it up, whereas games which can only be downloaded (say, RuneScape) aren't, and that's when sourcing becomes a problem. Someoneanother 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, just giving Someoneanother's debate-closing argument the numerical support it needs. User:Krator (t c) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If you wish to reduce to a one-paragraph stub per WP:NOT, go ahead. It's still notable enough for that one paragraph. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and shorten As per shalom. This is barely notable. But it's so badly written it's tempting to delete. Let's just summarize this down to its essential parts. Randomran (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (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.