Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight War: After the Fall
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:27Z
- Twilight War: After the Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NN-game that is labled with a NN-neologism already slated for deletion produced by a NN-corporation which I am also nominating. This program fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additionally WP:NOT a crystal ball, and article fails to assert notability, lacks sources of anykind say much less verifiable independant third party ones.
- Delete as nominator -- wtfunkymonkey 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The game apparently has had a very long development cycle, as noted by the nine articles from IGN about the game. "Twilight War: After the Fall" (in quotes) gets 76,200 Google hits; though only 174 of these hits are unique, I've found articles about the game in German, Russian, and Czech. Here are a few articles from GameSpot. I've never heard of this game, and it's certainly not going to be the biggest title ever, but I would argue that substantial coverage from multiple reliable gaming web sites confirms the game's notability- as would WP:SOFTWARE. -- Kicking222 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The company's website indicates that they don't have funding and won't be completing the product. Tarinth 01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tarinth's statement. If they have no funding and have stated they won't be releasing it, there's no hope for an article here. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The external links are listed now but are not independent. --- Skapur 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:21, 27 December 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.