Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight Heroes


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Twilight Heroes

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

I contested the prod; the nominator's opinion was "not enough reliable sources establising notability". I think it is sourced enough to not qualify for prod, but not sure if it qualifies for an article per WP:N. Firestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - Reasonably popular Kingdom of Loathing type game. Appears to have sufficient coverage to be notbale - in fact throw ref tags around some of the External links and sprinkle them in the body and you;d have your WP:N right there. Artw (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom I know that the prod was unnecessary, but I was on the fence about its having multiple, non-trivial mentions in WP:RS. If it can be cleaned up and a few better sources found than what currently exists, I would have absolutely no problem with keeping it. Firestorm (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I went through the google link you provided and found no better sources than what was already present. --Peephole (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources present. Only a "reader-submitted review", a link to a blog and a link to a games directory . There's a link to this site , but that seems like a "reader-submitted review" as well. --Peephole (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I went for SD, then PROD, and I still think this is just the author trying to promote something that's non-notable at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - IndieGames is part of the Gamasutra network, which is generally considered reliable. GamesRadar is not a games database: the article in question is a reprint of a PC Gamer article (though the coverage is minor). ImpulseGamer looks fairly legit to me, though it probably won't pass muster with the rest of the people here. There's also a review at RockPaperShotgun, which is considered reliable per our project. SharkD (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral In its favour are the Rock Paper Shotgun article (it's both reliable and a review) and this from Eurogamer, though it's just a portion of a larger article it at least offers an opinion of the game. The others don't do anything at all. Jay is Games is a site I'm very happy to consider reliable except with the occasional user-review which this one happens to be. Play This Thing is another site which is good to use, but instead of their review being posted by site manager Greg Costikyan or 2nd in command Patrick Dugan, it's from a poster who has no background in journalism according to his bio, has only posted a couple of things on the site ever, and states that he is a moderator of the game. Top marks for disclosure, but it well and truly pisses on our matches. That leaves indiegames.com which is reliable but the page in question is just a description/signpost, it's not a review and it's of no real benefit to this discussion. The Games Radar listing is literally a trivial mention of no use at all. ImpulseGamer doesn't look very reliable to me. So we've got 1.25 reliable reviews.. a very poor foundation for an article. Can't decide either way so I'm happy to accept everyone elses' judgement. Someoneanother 04:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The IndieGames link is not just a signpost. It's part of a larger article titled "Best freeware rpgs, roguelikes 2007." The word "best" in the title means it's an award and reflects analysis on the part, not just simply a statement that the game exists. SharkD (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a grab-bag article of foo games from foo year which goes does nothing but give an overview of the game. Yes they've highlighted it, but asides from putting it in a group-article with that title they've provided no analysis at all. Being featured in an article like that is hardly like winning an IGF award and I'd be in two minds whether to even bother including it if I was writing an article on a game featured in it. For the purposes of being non-trivial coverage it's not on the scale. Someoneanother 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the available more-then-trivial sources and send to WP:CLEANUP. If an article can be improved per wiki standards, it should be. Even the nom agrees that if the article can be improved, it might be worth keeping. We need a gamer wikipedian to work on it. No sense tossing it out because it ain't been done right yet. Wiki has no deadline. Let's see if it gets better. Be a pity to toss out something that could improve wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm not ecstatic about the volume of sourcing, but having knocked together a reception section with what we've got it looks close enough to what I'd expect to see as a minimum. Someoneanother 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, SharkD, and Artw. Cleanup, not delete. Ikip (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (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.