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 Keep (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NukeZone[edit]

NukeZone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable sources establishing notability, delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Tagged with reliable sources tag since July 2008. Peephole (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I agree it needs additional external support in the article, but it seems to have a loyal fanbase (websites claims 35,000 users). Also, it's been featured in PC Gamer (picture from nukezone website, so it's not open and shut). A lot of the sources are probably in Swedish, so someone who can read Swedish would be helpful to this discussion. I could be swayed strongly either way by objective, third party information. If that doesn't show up though, I'd lean towards keeping it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The amount of users is no argument for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reliable coverage is what we're looking for. The PC Gamer article is trivial. --Peephole (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There never was an argument made that the number of users warrants inclusion. However I do argue that the number of users is an important piece to understand the context of the subject's notability. Consciously blinding the discussion from the number of users would be a strangely dogmatic approach. There is absolutely nothing in the notability criteria that indicates that popularity is an irrelevant factor. It indicates that popularity is not itself a notability criteria. I understand the allusion to WP:BIG but that is not the argument here. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You claim there are other reliable sources out there, I googled a little and I found nothing. Please, if you think this article should stay, find some yourself and post them. But the way it is now, without reliable sources, it should go. --Peephole (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: sufficient sources, but needs expansion of notability criteria. Jofakēt (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only sources are links to the game's website, a link directory and a trivial mention in PC Gamer. --Peephole (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 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.