Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo online

: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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

=[[Argo online]]=

:{{la|Argo online}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argo_online Stats])

:({{Find sources|Argo online}})

Not notable. No sources apart from affiliated or ones by the company itself.

Very little content apart from system requirements, and the intro. ~~ Sintaku Talk 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

::Withdrawn by nominator - Probably a bit premature in the AfD, will give more time next time. ~~ Sintaku Talk 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't make the grade in its present form. Deb (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

::Shinji, if you have not finished the article, you should work on it in your sandbox. Deb (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm okay. I am actually done so far. There might be more additions in the future but for today i am done. Still need to outline the Gameplay a bit more in detail. Should be able to do that on Monday, when i have internet again. ~~Shinji170981~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinji170981 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - 6 minutes to AFD? I thought we weren't supposed to WP:BITE the newcomers. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to draft space to give this new editor and anyone interested a chance to work on the article. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ({{find video game sources short|Argo online|linksearch=}}) • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Besides the WP:BITE issue, I found this [http://massively.joystiq.com/tag/argo-online/] over at Joystiq, 10 seperate articles covering Argo Online. I also saw coverage from the usual MMO sites, MMORpg.com, mmocast.com and MMOhuts.com .. coverage from gameindustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/argo-online-closed-beta-launches-today] ... Search results are somewhat poisoned by results for "online" viewing options for the movie, Argo. This AFD seems premature. Missing sources is not proof of that sources do not exist. -- ferret (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BITE is not actually an issue, nor is failure to provide references a reason to keep an article. It's good to see that the article creator acknowledges his mistake. Deb (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure what you mean. Going to AFD on notability grounds means more than simply that the article lacks sources, but that also, no sources can be found. I found about 15 in 10 minutes. The existence of sources IS a reason to keep an article. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the refs you mention above seem to be from sources that would be considered borderline in terms of reliability. Is that why you didn't add them to the article? Deb (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I added them to the article's talk page in a refideas template? Most of them are commonly used in WP:VG articles. Some are, of course, better than others, but enough coverage exists. I have no particular interest in the topic of the article though, and finding sources for others to use is not an obligation to perform edits. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Relisting comment: Although the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination, another editor has made an argument for deletion, so this discussion should not be speedily closed.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment AFD is not cleanup. No specific policy based argument for deletion currently exists. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:* ... what? "Not notable. No sources apart from affiliated or ones by the company itself." That definitely seems to be a policy-based argument (WP:GNG). --Odie5533 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:** The nominator withdrew. The remaining Delete comment does not address policy. That was my view point at the time of that statement. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:25, 3 March 2014 (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.