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. JForget 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Force Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references from reliable, third-party sources, especially sources recommended by WikiProject Video games. Virtually the same article has been created and deleted multiple times, as Soldier Front (see deletion discussion), Special Force (online game), and Special Force Online. Recommend salting so that if this game does warrant an article in the future, it can go through proper deletion review procedures. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Game seems notable at least in the Philippines, although judging from the fact that the article still fails any notability tests, then I guess we need to have it huffed (read: deleted) for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see any notability to this. If there is any, it's non-English and needs proper refing. The article is fancruft and guide at best. From previous deletions, I don't see that it has gained much English coverage. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt -- may be notable under the Philippines Wikipedia, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability that I could see. Seems to have a little coverage in the Philippines, but it's hard to establish any of those sites' as reliable. --Teancum (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (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.