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 game is even mentioned in this book. I'm sure there is enough references to pass WP:GNG requirement. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Link 1 is a gamespot portal, link 2 is a gamefaqs portal, link 3 seems to be a spam site with an amateur review, link 4 is again the gamefaqs portal, this time listing amateur reviews, link 5 seems to be the only half-decent review, although I'm not sure about the site's reliability, link 6 offers three words on the subject "For example: Rakion", link 7 seems to be a press release, and link 8 is just a download site. So yeah, serious sourcing problems.--Sloane (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book only mentions the game in a passing mention, as an example: "There are also hybrid MMOG-FPS crossovers such as ... Rakion (Softnyx, 2005)." Remember, we need reliable sources that offer significant coverage. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NOTE--Sloane (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a careful at links, you mentioned some of them that are repeated, while there is not. I see that this game suffers a lot of criticism for its hacking and glitch control system, that even though the game has a big number of players, the majority are bug abusers or hackers, a thing that is not seen with a good look by major gaming magazines, retailers and so on, but a fact that reinforce the notability and relevance of this article to wikipedia is the fact that it share binds with GunBound. But even though it is a mention it also reinforce its notability factor. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this review. Note - most of the links I provided give only a short phrase like "Rakion a MMORPG", but also they provide further navigation to reviews, videos, pictures and other things. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, notability isn't inherited from other articles. Gunbound is irrelevant to this discussion. Number of players ia also irrelevant. What we're looking for is good, detailed reviews from reliable sources. A review from a publication on this list for example, would be very helpful. The link from MMOhunt also fails WP:RS, MMOHut isn't a good reliable source. It's a site run by two brothers, with no editorial oversight. We need better.--Sloane (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been hearing about this game for a long time, so I'm somewhat surprised there's no independent sources for it as it seems popular enough. However, I have transwiki'd it with full history to StrategyWiki:Rakion: Chaos Force/Getting Started (to be subpaged throughout the guide). -- Prod (Talk) 07:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the links above, only onrpg made me look twice - Onrpg was briefly discussed as a source here and the current concensus is not to use it. Other standbys such as Cnet and IGN just have the publisher's description. Marasmusine (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep - The article needs proper writing and get referenced with the links I provided, of course there are other reliable sources on the internet, and those sources are just an example that sustains its notability. Even though WP:N is not WP:INHERIT, the developer of both games is somewhat known and the game is severely known as a game that is enjoyed by its public through the massive use of game hacks. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what sources you intend to base the article on. Marasmusine (talk) 09:46, 5 April 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.