Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashTrek: Resurrection: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:16, 3 June 2014

FlashTrek: Resurrection

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

Non-notable Flash game. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2 Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2014 (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) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero coverage in reliable independent sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Links updated and verified for official site, and independent sources coming soon. Game made in Unity not flash and is sequel of notable gaming series. —JDonnelly2014 ^talk_edits 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) — Jdonnelly2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you mention what these sources are since if we know what the independent sources you plan to add are we will know if they are enough to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability? Also, being independent while important is not itself enough, the sources also have to offer non-trivial coverage and be reliable. On Wikipedia being reliable means that the sources have a history of fact checking and accuracy and more info about that can be found at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. To be clear links to the official site do not make a subject notable and the fact that the game uses the Unity engine is completely irrelevant. I also have doubts that the series is notable since as mentioned bellow an entry for a previous game in the series was deleted for not being notable. Also, even if the series was notable it does not mean that this should automatically get an article due to Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per everything said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2. I considered potential G4 CSD of this article, but the last revision of the AfD'ed article has substantial differences (not necessarily improvements). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Delete''' - Absolutely zero coverage in reliable independent sources. —<B>[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Do not delete''' - Links updated and verified for official site, and independent sources coming soon. Game made in Unity not flash and is sequel of notable gaming series. —<B>[[User:Jdonnelly2014|JDonnelly2014]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Jdonnelly2014|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Jdonnelly2014|edits]]</sub> 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Jdonnelly2014|Jdonnelly2014]] ([[User talk:Jdonnelly2014|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdonnelly2014|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
+::Could you mention what these sources are since if we know what the independent sources you plan to add are we will know if they are enough to meet the standards of [[Wikipedia:Notability]]? Also, being independent while important is not itself enough, the sources also have to offer non-trivial coverage and be reliable. On Wikipedia being reliable means that the sources have a history of fact checking and accuracy and more info about that can be found at [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]]. To be clear links to the official site do not make a subject notable and the fact that the game uses the Unity engine is completely irrelevant. I also have doubts that the series is notable since as mentioned bellow an entry for a previous game in the series was deleted for not being notable. Also, even if the series was notable it does not mean that this should automatically get an article due to [[Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED]].--[[Special:Contributions/70.49.80.26|70.49.80.26]] ([[User talk:70.49.80.26|talk]]) 23:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - Per everything said at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2]]. I considered potential [[WP:CSD#G4|G4]] CSD of this article, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Flash+Trek+2&timestamp=20080116194733 last revision of the AfD'ed article] has substantial differences (not necessarily improvements). <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)