Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari (3rd 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:40Z 

Somari (3rd nomination)

 * — (View AfD)

A prior AfD decision to delete was overturned on review and is now back for reconsideration. I reverted to the version that was considered at the previous AfD, two recreations were speedily deleted for lack of context. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I honestly planned to vote delete, but after doing a Google search (over 200K, pretty good for a illegal NES title). The article could be expanded too if someone was willing to put time into it. TJ Spyke 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fangame, the end. And yes, I know all about its fame. Danny Lilithborne 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fangame" does not mean "the end". What makes fangames so inherently non-notable that no circumstances could give them notability? - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're also wrong. It's not a fan-made game, it's a HK pirated game.  Big difference.  --UsaSatsui 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my opinion at Deletion Review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable, if niche. Needs citing, though. Shimeru 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep only with some rewriting, in cluding citations. SkierRMH 10:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep but somedome does need to work on itOo7565 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems some sources do exist, which is surprising considering that most illegal stuff is so incredibly difficult to source. Needs a big cleanup. --- RockMFR 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a bit of work, though.--UsaSatsui 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it looks notable enough, if all the claims in the article are true - needs some more sources. (Also agree that a game doesn't have to made by a major game studio to be considered notable.) Quack 688 09:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough for any reasonable guideline; disk space is cheap and it is useful content. Bryce 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep looks noteable, could use a rewrite as well as double checking sources. Davidpdx 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. My eyes generally glaze over when it comes to all this game stuff on Wikipedia. However, this is anything but a promotional corporate puff article as the game in question is a pirated one. There are, in my opinion, articles on top selling video games that are of less use and notability than this one. Shawn in Montreal 02:24, 28 December 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.