Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWGEmu (3rd 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWGEmu (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)

Article tagged with notability and refimprove since August, no change. Couldn't find and reliable, significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Recommending WP:SALT as well since it has been recreated multiple times without being able to pass notability guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article's sources are unacceptable. I could not find any other coverage beyond forum chatter. I agree with SALT, as the article has been deleted 8 times already. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur, I can't find any reliable sources. That said, a notable retail game being restored in this manner might have some notability - but only when it is released. Even then, you'd need significant coverage in reliable sources to pass muster. I agree, also, that this should be SALTed. This doesn't mean that an article (with sources showing notability) couldn't be put together at a later date, but just that you'd need consensus at deletion review to do so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:52, 11 October 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.