Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabal Online (second 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 keep - there seems to be fair consensus that this video game is notable: it has been reviewed professionally and it seems to have received a fair share of press coverage. This needs to be sourced though, as do several tens of thousands of other articles relating to commercial subject matters. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal Online

Cabal Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article wsa deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabal Online only a few months ago, but this is not a straight G4 recreation. However, again there is no indication of any notability, the article has been tagged for several months now. I see no reason why the conclusion of the last AfD can't be applied straightforward again here. Fram 07:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there is a high number of Japanese news related to this game. I do not know if they are press release. Carlosguitar 08:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment while i have never played this or even looked into the topic, i have heard of the game numerous times. I do think it's notable. Google also shows many things on MMOG sites, downloads, videos and pictures, etc., which makes it seem to be spread out on the net quite a bit. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think the old AfD has at most very minimal relevance. Arguments from the previous AfD:

1. Game hadn't been released yet; WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - doesn't apply since the game has since been released.
2. Blatant advertisement / listcrufty - the article in its current form looks perfectly neutral and informative to me, so this probably doesn't apply.
3. Lacks sources - this could apply, but there is a very good chance that adequate sources now exist which were not available 15+ months ago. Also, considering that the game appears fairly significant (numerous communities, fan sites, etc.), and hard-to-find sources may be available in other languages, and much work has been put into building a comprehensive and informative article, it would be wise IMO to exercise reservation and delete only as a last resort.

— xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The game is already out. In Asia and Europe as well Brazil. Just because the US and Canada (which are stated in the article) still haven't received their version of the game, this doesn't simply give the people reason to delete the article.

1. Game hadn't been released yet - Not true, read the article as it says near the bottom that the American/Global version of the game is delayed. The reason behind this, is because no one wants to publish it yet. Maybe 1 year down the road they will make for the International people, but until then, Asian, Brazil and Eu are playing it.
2. Advertisment - Again, not true. The article doesn't have too many scruffy things in it. Infact, most of the information is collected from the Official Site, or at least, sites afflited with the Official site if any others were taken.
3. Lacks Sources - While this may be true, I see lots of people searching on google and finding information about it. Instead of debating on this, why not list some actual sources and help the article?

There are at least several other MMORPG articles here on Wikipedia which have less then 2 lines, and no citation on them, yet they aren't nominated for deletion. Every tried Archlord? I think this article is more well written then that one. AceAngel ^T/_C 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The existance or non-existance of other articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the outcome of this AFD. If you feel they don't meet notability standards, feel free to nominate them. shoy 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Professionally reviewed and covered by games news sources, among which is the respectable PC Gamer magazine (Nov 2006, p.86). Notable. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable even if not licensed for USA. Bearian 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, reduce to stub - I'm confident that enough press coverage can be gathered to assert notability, even if it means Babel Fishing one of the Japaneses sources. However, the present content needs gutting; from start to finish it is peacock terms, original research, indiscriminate information and does not follow our WP:WAF style guide. External links also need stripping; just the english language offical site and non of the un-official ones (per WP:EL.) Marasmusine 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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.