Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civony

Civony

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS: no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Was previously moved to userspace (User:drAdamInCA/Civony) and restored before any editors had found reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wyatt Riott. Also warn ~~drAdamInCA~~ User:Valentine Smith about this behavior. Drawn Some (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't mean to imply that User:drAdamInCA had restored it. It was actually User:Valentine Smith. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more complex than that. Original version deleted was userfied. User:Valentine Smith created a very short stub, that was again deleted. Deleting admin for that then restored at the request of another user, and the userspace version was them copied over. Messy but I can't see anything to suggest any bad faith. The article as the userfied version ended up referenced only to non-reliable sources and had chunks of original research, the version at the moment having those things stripped lacks any real sourcing other than the target website itself. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a headache. Regardless, it does not have references to support a verifiable article regardless of its history or notability or lack thereof. Drawn Some (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, but notorious in the blogosphere:[1][2][3][4]. This page is clearly part of their marketing campaign. Fences and windows (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of demonstrable notability. Yes, the site exists; yes, it is popular; yes, there are blog entries relating to it. However, none of these things qualify an article for inclusion. There is no significant coverage (barely any at all, in fact) in any reliable sources. No prejudice against future re-creation - when and if it becomes notable. Frank | talk 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self-referential, original research. Muranternet 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because you're all insufferable. Cranston Lamont (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainly because I created it, worked on it and I'm ticked that someone said it's part of the marketing campaign seeing how I do NOT work for UMGE but am a player who enjoys the game.Terryrayc (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also agree with the above post. I started playing Civony (now Evony) in Early April 2009. The descriptions given are accurate. It should be mentioned that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the ability to progress and the incredibly huge cost for purchasing upgrades with real money. (Added by 142.25.40.250)

FYI I redirected teh page from Civony to Evony, the offical new name.Terryrayc (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]