Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Business
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Monster Business
- Monster Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Advertisement article that I can't believe can be saved, due to lack of available 3rd part commentary about this company. Damiens.rf 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is blatant advertising, didn't even need to come to AfD, but for the record,there are no sources to even verify anything in this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there's a large database of Amiga game reviews online, see [1] for several sources, more than enough to satisfy notability. Someoneanother 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, So you have met verifiability, but where is the non trivial coverage in reliable sources? I don't think Amiga
onlinefanzines qualify. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Those are magazine reviews which have been scanned and archived. Look at the dates, look at the scans. Someoneanother 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still works for me Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if national magazines like Amiga Power, CU Amiga and Amiga Computing aren't reliable, then what is? They aren't fanzines, they're no different to the magazines you could walk into your newsagent and buy today. The coverage isn't trivial, they're reviewing the game in as much depth as magazines cover anything other than triple-A titles. I fail to see how notability isn't asserted by them. Someoneanother 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still works for me Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are magazine reviews which have been scanned and archived. Look at the dates, look at the scans. Someoneanother 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, So you have met verifiability, but where is the non trivial coverage in reliable sources? I don't think Amiga
- Keep per Someone another's sources. Also, I wonder how the first to participants in this debate saw this article as an advertisement, noting that this is about a 1991 game. User:Krator (t c) 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sourcing has been found. The magazine articles are the PC Format, Edge and so on of their day. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has proper sourcing now. Razorflame 01:12, 3 May 2008 (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.