Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Galactic Insights


 * 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.  kur  ykh   07:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Galactic Insights

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


 * This article was previously part of this mass-AfD - while the AfD as a whole was a keep, most of the individual entries were subsequently deleted.

Unreferenced article for non-notable fan game. Google search yields no significant third-party coverage outside player community. --EEMIV (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Shell    babelfish 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only independent sources given are very trivial references to lists of these types of game. No apparent notability.  Shell    babelfish 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wookiepedia and deathstar this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a shame, the MUD is 30 years old this week. Too bad this one is not notable.  9 meager hits, and none of them indication of significant coverage. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:A7 as web content that doesn't assert notability. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined the speedy deletion. While it might fall under A7, I do not think speedy deletion should be used in cases in which the article was previously !voted as "keep" in a previous AfD. We ought to allow everyone involved in the previous AfD to re-ass the issue. Also, speedy-deleting it would be against the previous consensus to keep it, something that I think admins should not decide alone to overturn. Regards  So  Why  10:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While that's usually true, note that in this case it was only kept by AFD because the nominator bundled too much stuff at once. A botched AfD resulting in a procedural keep does not grant every single article immunity from speedy forever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V, etc. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:38, 24 October 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.