Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capoeira Fighter 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 19 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. MBisanz talk 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Capoeira Fighter 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable flash game Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, and so tagged. No claim of importance in article, so eligible for A7 speedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I came back to this after noticing a huge review on Jay is Games, [1], but a search only came up with E4, [2], which is a drive-by comment, to add to it. It's impractical to try and balance an article with one source and a throw-away comment, which is the crux of WP:N with these games. A real pity, fantastic looking game. No prejudice against recreation if further sources can be found. Someoneanother 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could probably have been speedied. Doesn't even really assert notability, much less back it up with any sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wholly unsourced with almost no assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:16, 31 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.