Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III: Black Gold


 * 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 because all issues that gave ground to this nomination is resolved, thanks to hard-working participants. (Non-admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

World War III: Black Gold

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is devoid of any secondary source as well as any primary source except for the video game's manual. Apparently it has been like that for two and half a year now. It also fails to establish its notability; even the article itself confesses this issue by calling it subject a "relatively unheard-of computer game". Fleet Command (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm finding some reviews of the game that could be used for third-party sources:, , , , , etc. Seems to fit the significant coverage clause of the notability guideline. I think it is notable enough to warrant an article, and the problem with it being unsourced is easily fixable. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection. I thank you for finding these, GorillaWarfare but ... I'm afraid these might not be enough. Er... You see, the majority of the article is in its Plot section and its plot section a close paraphrase of what article admits to be "World War III: Black Gold Manual (found on World War III website)". That's why I haven't withdrawn this AfD yet. When the majority of the article should be deleted/rewritten (for the aforementioned copyright reason,) well... shouldn't we delete it right now, per WP:SNOW? Fleet Command (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fleet, forgive me for asking, but did you look for sources before bringing this to deletion discussion? Marasmusine (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... Yes, I did. But... I am awfully unskilled in finding sources for computer games. I don't know how comes that you guys find such good sources but I always find nothing eye-catching. On the other hand, I don't understand how comes that while such good source-finders as you guys exist but articles like this must remain tagged as unsourced for years until a guy like me AfD it? Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent to keep all boxed, sold-in-stores PC games. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Really? You guys have a consensus to keep all articles related to all sold-in-store games? Perhaps you'll be kind to provide a link to that consensus... er ... just for information? Fleet Command (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw this too -- I've been wondering the same thing... — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage from IGN, Gamespot, etc as linked to by Gorilla, shows that this topic is notable. Marasmusine (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And your rewrites made it unbeatable. Withdrawing this AfD now... "Where have you been all these years?" asks the article! Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 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.