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. There's no compelling reason to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic fangames, which deleted this article and Sonic: Time Attacked over notability and verifiability concerns, concerns which have dogged this article from day 1 (May 1, 2005, for those keeping score at home). If after four years and 300+ edits these concerns cannot be addressed then I despair that they ever will be. Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Robo Blast 2[edit]

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

Survived the AfD on nothing more than vote stuffing and majority rule, neither of which constitutes a legitimate reason for keeping. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, request immediate speedy deletion, as I only just realized that this is the third nomination for deletion, and the second one was successful. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, the second nomination isnt this the same thing as this article as this. Legend of Black Chaos is an expansion not the game itself. Speedy Delete does not apply here. §hawnpoo 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind then. Regardless, this article is absolutely non-notable. Not one single assertion of notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The previous discussion had a whole lot of talk about how big the project was and how many people played it (even an "other articles exist"-argument came along which compared websites and webcomics to the game). All the previous comments ignored the fact that without reliable sources this amounts to nothing more than an advertisement. I was unable to find sources unrelated to the creators of the game. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft §hawnpoo 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: GamesRadar mentions SRB2 in one of its Top 7 lists here, and the SRB2 website itself lists/shows scans of various video game magazines that have mentioned SRB2 within the past three years here. Arrowned (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be kind and add them into the article or place them on the article's talk page so that we know those sources are there? MuZemike 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR. Previous "consensus" was contaminated by votestacking, and consensus has changed anyway. The consensus at the first AFD, to delete, is probably closer to the truth, and no new sources have appeared since then. Randomran (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Neutral: looks like Arrowned has identified some sources that were not available by web search, which may be persuasive. Some mods become worthy of notice in reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nom misreperesents closing admin's decision on first AfD, and as Arrowned just pointed out, there are various print sources which have covered the game, which Nom could have found with a couple of minutes of research before actually starting an AfD, and we'd be arguing on whether these sources are sufficient to write and maintain a NPOV article. "It's cruft" or "I don't like the result of the last AfD" aren't valid reasons to delete, sorry. MLauba (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, things AFD-wise are different now in 2009 than it was back in 2006, the year of this first AFD. MuZemike 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but that mere fact still does not constitute a valid policy-based reason to delete, IMO. MLauba (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Honestly, I read over the entire article, and found NO reason whatsoever to remove it. It holds factual encyclopediac information and the game is popular enough that people will check wikipedia to learn more about it. I could care less about the articles about mods that are also marked, but the main SRB2 page should be kept. Chaos Knux (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Chaos Knux's first edit! I smell meatpuppet! Here is a link to his contribs [1] §hawnpoo 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MLauba. However, the article really should cite said sources and/or get a complete rewrite - it's rather lousy as it stands. --Shadow Hog (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whether this article stays or goes comes down to whether it will be rewritten properly. There's a lot that 'could' be added, but there's also many things that the game has yet to included. However, the next public release is scheduled for May 2009, so there's a bunch more that could be added later. Thing is, though, that the article up for debate centers around the current release, not a future one. -BlueZero4 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the sources are there to establish notability of the game; click under "Press" on the navbar [2] (another reason I despise the usage of frames on web pages). MuZemike 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well then, since it seems that there are some sources and the article is simply just poorly-written and w/o them, I suppose I'll withdraw. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete (CSD G4). Rewrite. I love SRB2 and all that, but the article has been deleted three times before, and I still think the article content is not good enough for a proper Wikipedia entry. It has the sources, but the article itself is crap and always has been, and until someone can make a great article (which IMO is what SRB2 deserves) my vote stands. If the article IS going to be rewritten to make it better, I revoke my speedy deletion claim, otherwise it SHOULD be deleted, because in its current state it's not worth keeping on Wikipedia. カラム 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Whether or not an article is badly written, last I checked, does not determine if it is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. Also, as has been observed earlier in this discussion, speedy deletion does not apply. ~Mecha DarkWarrior 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doom WAD and add to the list of mods there. The two sources provided (gamesradar and kombo) are good, but not significant enough to warrant its own article (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. Sources provided all consist of trivial coverage.--Sloane (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sloane and nom. Andre (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (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.