Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soldier Front


 * 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 - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Soldier Front

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unreleased computer game. Unsourced, and seems rather "crystal ball" to me. Philippe Beaudette 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified and crystal ball. --RaiderAspect 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable: google search for "soldier front" + game yields hits only from developer website, free download websites, and user-generated review sites. Natalie 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to assert how it meets either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE --Gwern (contribs) 05:44 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to check bullet number 1 again under WP:SOFTWARE as this is one of the new products under the ijji game portal. While that may not sound important on its own, ijji is the North American version of the HANGAME portal, a major gaming website in East Asia.  Still choosing to delete this article could violate some worldwide view issues.  PinoyGenius 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Give people time to go through the game. Its out now and it would only be a matter of time before more information and more sources appear. Article needs time to be completed, give the article time. Terminator50 23:16, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Somehow there always seems to be an argument saying we should keep bad articles because they may someday be good/verifiable/notable, etc. Meet the standards for a verifiable and notable article now, or wait and create the article later.  It will be a total waste of people's time if they put in the effort to "perfect" an article only to see it deleted in a few months because it never really was notable to begin with. zadignose 08:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue the opposite. If the game turns out to be huge then people will have to start completely fresh with this article.  Having never heard of the game I can't claim this to be the case but I believe that there should be a way to prolong deletion if it is believed that an article only needs time.  Olleicua 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As this game is still in development, open beta, there's no way I or anyone else for that matter could possibly provide as much information currently. Upon further research and development of this game by it's creators, I will be able to provide any missing information currently shown under the article. As of now, none of these Wikipedia users have any authority to even be considering deleting my entry. Philanthropy 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Philanthropy, There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. They belong to us all.  As such, they have to adhere to the criteria for inclusion.  This article seems to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Notability standards.  When the game comes out, you can recreate the article as long as it is notable, well-sourced, and not original research. Regards, Fundamental Dan 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is no notable sources about the game Gunster but we still have the article. Scorcher117 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Keep I reference my comment above as to why this article should remain since it is a product of the ijji gaming portal website. Additionally, the game has been out for several days now and, with the number of users fluctuating between 2500 and 3000, there has been ample opportunity to test the game out and render all crystal ball concerns obsolete. Furthermore, the fact that there have been no further recommendations for deletion since the release of the game should provide more evidence to keep this article. It is important to preserve the "history" of this game as it is occurring and fresh in its players' minds rather than trying to write about it after the fact. Finally, how someone can recommend the deletion of an article pertaining to a topic within 24 hours of its release is beyond me.--PinoyGenius 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my above statement. Fundamental Dan 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)   Also notice that this user's contributions up until this article were here  and simply adding "owned by stygian", with accompanying website, to some articles. Fundamental Dan 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources-failig WP:V, it needs major cleanup, wikifying and theres not even been a template added saying its a future game or software, in my opinion not worth the trouble. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Per nom. --Bryson 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The game just needs time to develop popularity, then all the info will come flowing in. Also about the crystal ball thing, the game has been confirmed and will open today and all of the info on the wikipage is on the website. Whats so unverified about it? Scorcher117 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced It's ok to have an article about an upcoming game, but only if the article is based on referenced, verifiable, independently published facts and it demonstrates a certain level of notability for inclusion. This article, though, appears to have no independent references and fails to demonstrate the game is at all notable.  Delete unless proper sources can be provided for verification and notability. Dugwiki 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing turns up in Google News or other news article searches. If it were notable, the news media would have mentioned it somewhere. --Aude (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You should give the game some time before deciding if the article should be deleted or not. Check out the release date, it's barely 1 day. Be patient and give some time.  OhanaUnited   22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have tried to edit this article more to make it more readable and "wiki" like but I don't usually edit articles and don't know more of the code per say. The article however is legit and is pertaining to a game that was just released. Its following is a couple thousand and growing so given time the article should grow. It is unreferenced however because all the information is on either the game's site itself or found by playing the game. Socerhed 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The game is fairly new, give it some time. Ambrosia- 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Metacomment: The game was apparently released (as open beta) after the nomination, so many of the "delete" comments saying "crystal ball" or "unreleased" seem to be outdated already. I encourage those who already commented above to update their stance (possibly still recommending delete for reasons other than "crystal ball"). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 11:21Z 


 * Keep. The article has been significantly improved (including sources) since the AfD was placed (see ).  Also, I don't find it very appropriate to nominate a speedy-able article for deletion 7 minutes after its creation.  I appreciate the work new-page watchers do, but non-speedyable articles can be added to one's Watchlist or bookmarked.  -- Black Falcon 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is still no evidence of multiple non-trivial third party sources. There also seems to be a WP:COI and a fair bit of WP:ILIKEIT. --RaiderAspect 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A new game that does exist and has now been released and has gained sourcing since first being put on the chop block shows more of a new article being formed than an article beyond hope of meeting wikipedia standards. Bbagot 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As I commented above. Hasn't established notability.  It is common for fans, or those in favor of promoting a new product in beta, to insist that an article should stand without establishing notability, or providing independent third party references.  You may like the game, but anyone can announce a beta test and get some folks to download something for free.  That doesn't make it a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.zadignose 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As I am saying again as well, the same goes for the articles Gunz and Gunster but we still had those articles during their open betas. Scorcher117 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is true, we even have a Ragnarok Online 2 article and it isn't out either.68.197.250.68 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that there are other articles which may not establish notablity DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE KEPT. It means that the other articles that don't establish notability should be deleted. --RaiderAspect 02:28, 24 February 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.