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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Openlancer[edit]

Openlancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The game is not yet complete, nor is it even properly under development at this state (merely in planning). The article reads like an advertisment, being heavily edited by a member of the development team. While I have nothing against small FOSS projects, letting articles persist when said small projects are only in planning stages opens the gates to a whole lot of vapourware. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, game does not appear to be notable, has no notable third party links or sources. Perhaps once the game is released this article can be valid for recreation. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability, no sources, POV. -- Kicking222 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several problems with the article; one, it is crystal-ballism, we don't even have definitive confirmation; two, there are POV qualms, because a member of the team was involved in its write-up, and three, there are no reliable sources to confirm it. When this satisfies these three criteria, then it can be re-created. --SunStar Net 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Crystalballism, WP:V, POV and so forth. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 09:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT, WP:V. Terence Ong 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rewrite in progress to address WP:NOT crystalballism and POV. WP:NOTCVG is a proposal, not finalized, but notability is a problem for all small FOSS projects. Nothing wrong with an editor being involved with the subject, I'm the Lead Designer and an OL site admin. I was asked to update the article to conform with Wikipedia guidelines as I understood them at the time. Note: The project is an active community, the meat-puppet effect is likely but unintentional. --MegaBurn 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and close already. jeez. Just H 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 0 no rewrite is going to make it compliantSkierRMH,07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV Obvious. Charlie 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:V at the least, can't be bothered listing the numerous other failings of the article, besides they've been listed by just about every other person responding to this AfD, and they are right. Each and every one of them. The Kinslayer 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional - Since MegaBurn (the only person wishing to keep the article) is the lead designer on the Openlancer project, I also think it should be deleted on WP:NPOV grounds, especially seeing as how a good 75% of the edits to the page have been his. The Kinslayer 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update, Rewrite complete, "core" article posted, waiting for feedback on talk before posting the rest. As I see it this satisfies all concerns list here. I haven't had a chance to join the WP:NOTCVG debate yet but there are plenty of other little known FOSS projects with articles on Wikipedia. --MegaBurn 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Er, you've already stated you think the article should be kept earlier in the debate. The Kinslayer 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, changed "keep" to "update", I didn't think this was a flat vote, was just stating/maintaining a position as the situation changes. --MegaBurn 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well now the article has been butchered down to a rather pathetic looking stub and still has the notability tag. I understand the need to maintain high quality standards in content but this is ridiculous. I think its about time I got involved in more of these AFD debates to counter balance this insanity and defend other FOSS projects - even if no one else is defending this one. --MegaBurn 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V, no reliable sources given. QuagmireDog 04:01, 8 December 2006 (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.