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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkeden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Available verification seems to be limited to primary sources: Joymax press releases and an interview at IGN. Therefore does not meet our requirements for verification or notability (WP:V, WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've never played this game, but a quick search reveals plenty of coverage (some more reliable than others).

While some are less reliable than others, I believe it serves to establish more than sufficient notability and verifiability. Article needs expansion, however, but AfD is not clean-up. Salvidrim (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMO Hut, MMO Reviews and Brighthub aren't WP:RS; the IGN list is entirely press releases; gamesradar is an aggregate source which eventually leads to Cinemablend, a self-published source that looks reasonable so perhaps should be vetted at WP:VG/RS. Ten Ton Hammer is actually fine, thanks, although I'm aware of our caveat on single sources. Marasmusine (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply As I've said, I'm aware that some of these are not reliable, however the very existence of the coverage in independent (although arguably not disinterested) sites seems to imply some amount of notability. Agreed on GamesRadar, and I also think TenTonHammer is the most solid of these. Salvidrim (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, deleting this article is the same as saying we don't want people to have information unless we approve it. Silly isn't it ? (sorry for no formatting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.193.85 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, was this an unsigned comment from the nominator or someone else? In any case, not only is information available elsewhere, but Wikipedia's goal is not to provide information about every single topic, only notable and verifiable ones. It has nothing to do with editors "not want people to have information" about something, it is about editors making sure topics covered by Wikipedia are topics that have their place in an encyclopedia. Salvidrim (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I also found sources to go with the TenTonHammer one. Marasmusine, what are your thoughts? GamersDailyNews.com, GamersHell.com, GamersHell.com, CinemaBlend.com, CinemaBlend.com, CinemaBlend.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking. Your first three links are press releases, the same ones that I found on my search. They cannot be used to support notability. CinemaBlend, as I say above, is a self-published source that should be vetted at WP:VG/RS but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to open the discussion. However, it seems to be a solid, reliable source. Its Owner and Publisher is a member of both the Dallas Fort Worth Film Critics Association and the North Texas Film Critics Association; the Editor in Chief, Katey Rich, was a writer for Film Journal International, and she's a critic (not an 'audience reviewer') at RottenTomatoes. While that established some relevance in the movie topics, I think it should indicate to some degree that this is not a "blog", thus should be considered reliable. With that and TenTonHammer, there should be more than enough to rescue the article. Salvidrim (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sold! Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.