Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Fighter

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Fighter

Non-notable product. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mlh56880 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep completely disagree with the nominator as well as the "per nom" ~~redlink~~ editor, ~~whom, as of this posting, has made less than twenty edits to Wikipedia.~~ While I've never been one for the arcade, even I know about this game. It was a very popular game back in the day and already somewhat historical by the early 1990s. It's name has to this date been preserved in gaming history. Furthermore, it has been a very influential game much like Pac-man has been. Definitley notable, no questions asked and deleting it would be a dishonor to Wikipedia's notability policies.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bite the newcomers and, at the same time, do not level an editor for being a "redlink". MuZemike 08:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that we are here to discuss this article's keeping or deletion, and at the same time, contribute input relevant to the subject's status.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice you should stick to yourself. I don't see how the fact that you know of the game makes it in any way notable and it is certainly nowhere near packman. I can't see how this makes it beyond a 'list of games that have existed.' But then that is IMO. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was as famous as Pacman. I just said it was as influential. Also I don't need to stick my own advice anywhere. I know my own advice like I know the back of my right hand. The comment above by MuZemike made no mention to the subject we are discussing here whatsoever, and is therefore not adressing input relevant to Omega Fighter, the whole point and actual subject of this discussion. Just reminding the editor to keep to the topic.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I value your comment. If you can find reliable secondary sources to back all of that up, then we might reach a keep. As it stands I still don't see notability.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're more attacking the person's qualifications and status as well as the person's statement. While it's OK to note stuff like WP:PERNOM in deletion discussions, such additional ad hominem comments are unnecessary. MuZemike 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you scroll down to the game on this list you'll three scanned magazines waiting to be cited, thanks to Arttu Ylärakkola at solvalou.com. Verifiable and notable. Someone another 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone another. Those print sources mentioned easily establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The magazine pages at solvalou.com ([1],[2],[3]) indicate passable notability. — Rankiri (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add verifiable sources immediately. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:19, 1 August 2009 (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.