Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final fantasy vi-2

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. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final fantasy vi-2 (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)

Non-notable fan remake of a video game for which I can find no significant coverage in a reliable source. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to http://blogcritics.org/gaming/article/square-to-release-final-fantasy-vi/ or type in Final Fantasy VI remake into google. You will find many reliable sources for the topic Final Fantasy VI Remake Which is called final fantasy VI-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johhnybravo123 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources found with any significant coverage. Best of sources have extremely passing mentions. Article has some extreme formatting issues, but that's besides the point. --Teancum (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, noting that I am the original prodder. There are no reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject-matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here is the official home page for the game Final Fantasy VI-2 Home Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.112.35 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete – There are just too many things that raise red flags in my conscience about this. First, there is not a single bit of coverage here via any reliable secondary sources; the Google search I find only gives Internet forums and not really anything else besides false positives (they don't count as reliable secondary sources). Second, the article looks like treating Wikipedia as another web host, which is not what WP is for. Third, there are some serious veriability and original research concerns, but that probably stems from my second reason. –MuZemike 20:32, 22 February 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.