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. Reliable, independent sources are key here. If someone feels a desire to improve it and add such sources to the article, please contact me and I will move it into your userspace. Grandmasterka 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebiz 2[edit]

Gamebiz 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original prod: No notability claim, no reliable sources for the information here, deprodded with the comment The sources may be from a forum, but they're all referencing things said by the creator of the game, (who's name on the forum is ArndtDK). He posts information on there that's not on the website. Main concern: product not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, failing proposed guideline for software. ReyBrujo 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even close to being independently sourced at the moment, and doubtless wouldn't meet notability even if it was. EliminatorJR 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Delete: There's quite a few examples of less-than-notable software in the Wikipedia. I'm not advocating acceptance of that fact as justification to keep sub-par articles, but I'd say that this article might find life as a subtext in another article. Rewrite to weak keep, otherwise delete. 71.109.127.31 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As far as I can tell, this game is not notable, and the article itself is not, as the nominator says, independently sourced.--NeantHumain 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources to verify, either. --Shirahadasha 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced. BJ^Talk 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like an advertisement. MarlaB 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup This is a good article but it has no references and would need a bit of cleanup.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's true the sources aren't independent, but then the sources in the article do not give any contradictory claims, only simple facts. The sources could be removed if editors find them unnecessary; otherwise, the article is pretty well-written and, indeed, does meet the notability requirements more than the many other stubs considered for deletion I have seen. Aran|heru|nar 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a program that's gaining in popularity among the emulation community. Notable.Sockem 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is one of the more successful and popular games in the freeware scene, with 1466 downloads in the first three days alone. In my opinion any questions of notability are void in this case, although granted, the article could use a clean up. Neobros 11:35, 25 February 2007 (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.