Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Pandemic


 * 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. TheIceking argued some sources were reliable, but later consensus specifically rejected this. Dcoetzee 06:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Pandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was multiple created (see log1 and log2) and sadly it was accepted in the WP:AFC reviewing process last week. The problem is again that all sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources (e.g. best-strategygamesonline.com). mabdul 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

- Primary sources are used strictly to corroborate updated content in the article. It is quite impossible for a third party publication to supply updated information on the current game version or number of players. However, if this is a major issue I can simply remove said information and related sources from the article altogether. - Contains at least two independent, credible sources of information regarding the article (onrpg and microsoft). games.blog.com has blog on the name, true, but it contains 5 editors and is directly associated with the official AOL games pages. So it's not a "one man and his blog" operation. - Other articles on games with equivalent characteristics and notability are already presente in wikipedia, for example ([urban dead]). - Is relevant/present in 6 other wikipedia lists. TheIceking (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC) TheIceking (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- I have no connection with previous attempts at creating a Zombie Pandemic article. Also, almost two years have gone by since the last submission attempt. Notability is not a static thing.
 * Comment: two years? 15 February 2010 and 27 September 2011 are not two years.
 * Not being orphan is no argument
 * onrpg doesn't even has any 'site notice' nor an author of the review
 * read WP:ALLORNOTHING ('urban dead' related) mabdul 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and the 'Microsoft Case Study' seem to be made by 'Pixel Pandemic' (the developers) (download the PDF)mabdul 22:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: - I did not notice the september 2011 attempt to add Zombie Pandemic to wiki. In any case, since there's no way to see how well/poorly previous articles have been written/referenced I can only speak for my own attempt at it.
 * The Onrpg article was written by Mitch Baylosis-Benesa, clearly referenced on the article itself and on my own reference links information. I also have no idea what you mean by "site notice", I couldn't find such a thing at gamespot or microsoft either.
 * The Microsoft case study is on the microsoft website. It is an independent, third party, reliable source that contains information relevant to the zombie pandemic wikipedia article. If you wish do dispute the veracity of the information present at the microsoft site or have a debate on the reliability of statements/information present on third party sources I am not the right person to talk to. I sought simply to reference my article information as best as possible.
 * Comment: If you click at http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/ at the bottom on Terms of Use you get to a disclaimer with the section 'What happens if you upload copyrighted materials to one of our websites without permission?' <-- that is useruploaded material!
 * The onrpg material still seems for me usergenerated. And even if not usergenerated: that would be only 1 reliable sourcemabdul 12:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any appropriate coverage in reliable sources, so the game does not seem to meet the notability requirements  Chzz  ► 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - (a) The article provides no evidence of notability (none of the sources are reliable, as discussed above). (b) My searches have been unable to uncover reliable sources discussing the game.  (c) 500,000 accounts is actually not a big deal in the context of a free browser game - it's not as if it's hits per day or concurrent players, it's just the total number of people who have ever tried the game - so in all likelihood the game is NOT notable and we shouldn't be surprised to find no coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Still no notability has been shown. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2011 (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.