Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgotha (computer game)

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.--Wizardman 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golgotha (computer game)

A rambling article about a non-notable video game that was never finished or released. —ptk✰fgs 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, article virtually deletes itself. Little to no assertion of notability, fails WP:ATT and WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. These comments make me feel a little better about having my prod removed a while back, but apparently the notability assertion was not related to the game's publication. I let it off the hook thinking that it might be improved, but it hasn't shown any signs of that. Dekimasu が... 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is every article supposed to have a list of explicit reasons why it's notable or else face deletion? Go back to the article and look at the External Links. Salon wrote a substantive article about the company, Gamasutra conducted an interview with one of the two principle players, and "crack dot com"+golgotha scores 3040 hits. The article needs to have the prose cleaned up, but it's notable. Chris Croy 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that Salon.com reference is certainly a reliable source, and the numerous other references (of varying quality) satisfy me that this game - even though it was never released - had a notable development period. --Canley 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references beat the snot out of anything that should be even remotely controversial regarding WP:N Nifboy 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability by having a verifiable secondary source. AntiVan 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if commented on by Salon.com this should be more than enough. Crazybacon 13:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources. — brighterorange (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is well-referenced. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-referenced? I am still not convinced. There are lots and lots of companies that fold with a product in development. Why is this a notable game? Surely, Duke Nukem Forever has attained notability through its failure to be released, but this game seems pretty much insignificant despite linking to sources. —ptk✰fgs 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember reading an article (preview) about Golgotha in a video game magazine at the time. There were also some post-mortem articles about Crack dot Com and its games after the company shut down --analoguedragon 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom fails to assert a valid reason for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article is well sourced, but my main complaint is that the article makes no assertion of notability. I would switch to keep if notability was made more explicit. --Alan Au 18:56, 3 March 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.