Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWGEmu (2nd 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. Sandstein 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWGEmu

Nothing has changed since the last AfD to justify keeping this new version. Still no assertion of notability, still no third-party sources, still not released software. Powers ^T 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found, only sources in article are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-existent product, sourced only to the company ostensibly producing it. Ford MF (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last afd says deleted. This article should be speedy delete. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I didn't even notice that the first AfD reached a unanimous consensus for deletion. Changing my recommendation to speedy delete. Ford MF (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A4) — If the recreated material is exactly the same as before the first deletion, then it should be speedily deleted. It also borders on blatant advertising, but I don't think it is. MuZemike (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Article was deleted seven times (see log), but the last one was well over a year ago. Whether or not to consider salting the article is up in the air. MuZemike (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm personally intrigued by the SWGEmu project, but my personal opinion aside, there is nothing currently objectively notable enough about it to merit its own article. Perhaps at some point it will deserve a mention in the main SWG article, but that point is not today. BrownHornet21 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Roguegeek already tried a speedy (blatant advertising) and it was rejected. I didn't try a G4 speedy (recreation of deleted material) because I'm not sure that the content is the same as prior versions. It's far more likely this was an independent attempt, and thus deserves its own AfD. Powers ^T 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to Object to the AfD on SWGemu as author of the article. I believe that such a project deserves a detailed synopsis on wikipedia. I will be working with others to expand on the current article soon. Why should it be on wikipedia? Because it is a ground breaking project, and holds a rich story and community. With over fourty-six thousand members, it is no joke to be laughed at, and deserves recognition. It has also been brought up that no software has been released. Infact this is false. There is currently a public Alpha server/test centre running 24/7, for anyone who is willing to join and test. Also, the source code is available and compilable under the GNU Lesser General Public License at [1]. Further, there are many other projects and games which are not released, and still have full and unmoderated Wikipedia Articles. For example, I direct you to Star Trek: Online, who for a period of months it was unclear as to whether development of the project was even proceeding. I understand your concerns as to the literary content of the piece, however I do not agree with the assertion that it is "Blatant Advertising" or spam. The previous, and deleted revisions of this article contained incorrect information, and were written at a time when SWGemu was not even fully operational. However, now there is a large, and flourishing open source and support community of over fourty-six thousand, and a project of such magnitude deserves to be written about in the one place where free speech at such a level belongs; Wikipedia. fais (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply asserting that the project "deserves" an article is not sufficient. We require evidence of notability from reliable third-party sources. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:No original research. Powers ^T 12:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Powers is right. What you said is nothing but an WP:ITSNOTABLE claim. You need verifiable, third-party sources to establish the article's notability. Sources from the site itself are not reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty flexible about websites, but this needs at least some external source of verification for notability. DGG (talk) 23:16, 6 August 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.