Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SlaveHack


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

SlaveHack

 * — (View AfD)

I prodded this webgame under not meeting WP:WEB and WP:V. The prod was removed and sources were added. However, two of them are first-party sources from the game itself. The other source is rather minor and was deleted in April 2006. I believe this article cannot be sourced by a non-trivial third party for verification. Wafulz 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN webgame. TJ Spyke 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. It fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB, unverifiable. Hello32020 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources from the game itself and one game-related site don't establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It says in the intro that there are 37,000 players. Is that notable for a video game? It seems like a big number, but I've never played an online game other than chess, so I'd like a second opinion. If it is a large number for its kind, then it should probably stay because of its notability in numbers. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Numbers are irrelevant- it's sources that matter. The reason people sometimes mention numbers is because typically as a game gets very large, the likelihood of sources existing goes up. That being said, there are none that I could find. --Wafulz 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, it seems like such a large number. I guess I'll opt in a weak delete. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:WEB TSO1D 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Terence Ong 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom per WP:WEB and WP:NN violations. Big  top  08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it sounds like an interesting game, but its not particularly notable compared to other browser games. Lankiveil 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as unverifiable by multiple reliable third-party sources, therefore fails V and WP:WEB. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Jyothisingh 12:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. ← A NAS  Talk? 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN per above. --Wildnox(talk) 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  0L1  |  Talk  |  Contribs   21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No citations to assert notability (WP:WEB) -- Selmo  (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NN/WP:WEB Just H 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no proof of notability given or likely possible. Herostratus 17:35, 5 January 2007 (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.