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. Sr13 05:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Paradise[edit]

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

Completely non-notable fanmade expansion pack, no reliable non-trivial secondary sources to allow any verification. Prod was contested by article creator (and 'studio' founder I should point out.) Delete. DarkSaber2k 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Polar pardise is NOT made-up, it is REAL. It is going to come out later this August. Us designers can create actuall animsl and objects for ZT2, and this is no exception. Blue Fang has also stated, that they are happy to see that we are creting things for ZT2, and giving up our time. After all, if EA is gonna be the last XP, all we are doing is helping Blue Fang out. Redpanda REX 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, and yet at the same time completely unrelated to any of the reasons I've given for this article to be deleted. DarkSaber2k 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As compelling as the argument to keep is, this smacks of fancruft to me. Also spamming for a product that hasn't come out yet. I'd like "more experienced in AfD" editors to weigh in on my comment before I decide. --Ispy1981 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strike my last comment and delete No outside reliable sources other than the studio for this article. A search of Polar Paradise turns up a whole lot of hits, none of which pertain to the article. Zoo Tycoon II:Polar Paradise turns up 0 hits.--Ispy1981 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We ARE making this. This isn't official anyway, so it wouldn't turn up on google. Panda-Baiji 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ATT, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, and even W:COI. Wikipedia is not for drumming up publicity; it's for things that are already noted by independent non-trivial third parties. It doesn't matter if it's real or not: if it's not NOTABLE and ATTRIBUTED per the specific contents of the above policies, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above. Wildthing61476 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Existing is not enough. You need coverage from independent sources. Wickethewok 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - and add spam to the reasons.--Svetovid 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per creators comments. Sorry folks, but Wikipedia isn't your free webspace. Try one of the many hosters for your content like Geocities or Myspace or whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete obviously, but I sure do love that cover art. — brighterorange (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong delete - This should have been speedy deleted in the first place. Turlo Lomon 08:38, 15 June 2007 (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.