Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigilance (video game)


 * 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:Issue resolved. (Non-Admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vigilance (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is devoid of any kind of secondary source. It does not introduce any source but its only source is obviously the video game itself, a primary source. It also fails to establish its notability. Besides, I can make neither head nor tail out of its "Playable characters" section; seemingly it is talking in-universe. Fleet Command (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the article doesnt have sourcing yet doesnt mean there not out there; Some reviews for reception can be found at, . Will do a bit more digging later but i think secondary sourcing can be found. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references found by Ottawa4ever alone, especially since GamePro is one of the top gaming magazines out there. –MuZemike 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur. Good finding, Ottawa4ever. I'll be more than glad to withdraw the nomination once the article is fixed. Fleet Command (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless someone beats me to it, Ill be on this some time this weekend (a bit bogged down currently...) Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Didnt have too much time tonight, but ive incorporated a reception section with the two previous sources i found and removed the characteristics of each individual character until they can be verified by another source. Should be a start... Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovely work. Keep it up. (But don't sacrifice your valuable time on it, you'll have enough time because:) I'm withdrawing this nomination. Cheers, pal. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (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.