Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarKingdoms (2nd nomination)

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. —Cryptic 11:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:WEB. There are no sources listed and based on a google search, there aren't any to be found. Note:This is a re-nomination of this page. The original nomination resulted in a Keep. Original debate can be found here --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I may never have heard of it, but it still gets under 50K on an Alexa traffic search, and I don't see any real reason to change the decision made earlier. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alexa rankings are a decent indicator, but are not the only issue in deciding notability. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response OTOH, they are enough for me to decide to go with a prior decision on an article, when no new argument has been made. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response During the decision making process for the previous nomination notability was barely discussed, even though it was part of the reason for nomination. My nomination is for notability alone. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: also WP:NOT "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..." --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per either WP:WEB or WP:SOFT, take your pick. No media mentions, references, or reliable sources that I can see, and a 50K Alexa rank isn't nearly high enough to keep it on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep ThunderGold 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Its a great game and I and many others have put in a lot of effort it is suitable for wikipedia if you remove this I expect every other online game to be removed as well[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anomo 01:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:WEB by having no claim to notability, let alone sources for it. Sandstein 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep dank - This page deserves a spot just as Burger King or Taco Bell. It is a popular game with a cult like following.
  • Comment: Yes, this game does have a cult-like following, but that doesn't make it notable. I personally have played this game on and off for almost 3 years, so I have a very intimate knowledge of this game, and I can't come up with a reason for notability, which is why we are here. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is Ridiclouis. Its more of a perosnal level Maelnuneb that you have showin then a level of why it shouldnt be here due to reason of notability. If it was for notability then it should be on the terms of the website not on here of values you pretain of what is 'notability' in your personal prefrence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.113.233 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:My position is based on WP:WEB, not on personal opinion of the game. Just an fyi: this afd has been linked on the SK forums --Maelnuneb (Talk) 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, this is a very long-standing and popular game, although the article desperately needs to be sourced. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable third party sources, original research, and it has no actual assertions of notability. 'theoretically capable of hosting an unlimited number of users simultaneously' Evidence please. The Kinslayer 12:37, 25 October 2006 (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.