Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft: Revelations


 * 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. - Bobet 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft: Revelations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. No reliable sources attest to the notability of the story. Otto4711 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The Salon and IGN stories provides some sources. The article is still a mess needs cleanup. -- Whpq 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a published short story though, and it was the cover of the magazine it was published in. See for one example.  Is that an acceptable reliable source?  Or ?  Perhaps ?  I can see this stuff isn't in the article now, but I'll fix it.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why is it a notable short story? There are literally millions of published short stories out there, and they are not all notable solely for being published.  --Haemo 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I believe it's considered notable because it meets, if weakly: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (The standard from WP:BK, should obviously be applicable to a short story). Does that answer your question? I'm wondering did you miss those sources somehow?   FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Notable short story, subject of independent secondary coverage in reliable sources. JulesH 11:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has potential for good, notable content, but no one has supplied such content or attempted to. Currently it should be deleted, but it could be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:14, 16 August 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.