Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates

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. Tyrenius (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates

Non-notable expansion pack for defunct game. This article has no primary or secondary sources, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search shows plenty of coverage from various game sites. Sources can be added, but the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This statement is a little to sweeping to go unchallenged. Which of these sites are specifically related to the Starfleet Universe? Are the sources simply a restatement of the primary sources? What is the quality of the source, and what real-world context do they provide? Ghits alone are insufficient evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but 13 reviews on Game Rankings [1] is sufficient evidence of notability. Please perform a search there before nominating any videogame articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My statement isn't sweeping at all. Anyone can browse through those ghits for themselves to see if the article has sufficient real world coverage. Lacking sources and having too much plot information are both issues for improvement of an article. They're not deletion reasons. Rray (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a review at all just a product listing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Trek Starfleet Command II: Empires at War. Notability of the game does not automatically extend to its expansion packs. Expansion packs are rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article and this one provides no such claim or evidence to support breaking away from the main. Collectonian (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an expansion pack, it's a standalone game. --Pixelface (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there aren't any primary or secondary sources cited, I interpret this assertion as an argument for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't try to put words in other people's mouths by saying you're going to "interpret" their arguments to keep as arguments for deletion. Rray (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am tiring of people advancing arguments for the retention of articles that aren't accompanied by actual sources demonstrating notability. These AfDs are taking on the look of a desperate rearguard action. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article cites and references several sources which I consider adequate. I am not desperate as I have no special interest in this game. Please assume good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find AnteaterZot's comment offensive. What you're "tired of" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not this article should be deleted, and just because you disagree with someone else's argument doesn't suddenly make it okay to not assume good faith. Your comment borders on a personal attack, and it surely doesn't assume good faith. Rray (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, also has good sources. Delete, looking it over again, it does not have good sources. STORMTRACKER 94 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, there are no sources at all used in the article, so how can it have any good ones? (External Links != sources) Collectonian (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game. --Jack Merridew 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable game and I think I've improved the article considerably. --Pixelface (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposer describes the game as defunct. Having looking closer, it still seems to have an active online multiplayer community. Either way, this shouldn't matter for the AFD as it would just an aspect of the proposer's dislike for the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, being "defunct" is not a reason for deletion. We have plenty of articles on things which no longer exist, or which are no longer commonly used. We delete things because they never mattered, not because they no longer matter. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment When is day defunct, I meant to say it has no notability now and will not achieve any in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's not the standard meaning of the word "defunct", perhaps you could be clearer in the future. Rray (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no offense, but that's a real stretch of the language.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not have had sources before, but now it does. I'd say those reviews back up it's notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has multiple independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close GameSpot + IGN + GameSpy reviews = reliable sources = notability. Game Rankings = seconds to use, MetaCritic = seconds to use. AFD =/= clean-up. AFD = last resort. This entire discussion could have been avoided by a few seconds searching and a cite tag. Someone another (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reviews by reliable sources present to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above .:Alex:. 17:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article is in reasonable shape now wrt sources, and of course "defunctness" has nuthin' to do with deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable game with good sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whoa. User:Krator (t c) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to have several published reviews. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Star Trek Starfleet Command II: Empires at War. quite a bit of work has been done to this article in last few days. It seems borderline keep, but adding it to the source article would make that article much larger only to spawn it off again at some point and we are back here. Let's keep it and be done with it. Web Warlock (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the "work" done since this article was created suggest that this expansion pack has any notability outside of Starfleet Command. Perhaps those wanting to keep this article would be better off trying to improve the entry on Star Trek Wiki rather than pretend this article goes anywhere near meeting the notability requirements for Video games. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reviews by reliable sources present to demonstrate notability, equivalent to numerous computer games etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 December 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.