Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HunCraft
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- HunCraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating this unofficial StarCraft expansion pack after over a week of no references provided (including on StarCraft page) as failing to pass WP:GNG -- multiple, reliable, independent sources with broad coverage; preferably reviews and critical reception, as this is a video game. Neither regular, news, book, or specialized VG search turned up any usable sources for establishing notability. I cannot really search for Hungarian sources, but searching .hu only sites, I only found this (translated). However, this is just 1 source. I'm hoping more can be found. Article itself is one long WP:GAMEGUIDE. I guess the source above can be used for a short paragraph in StarCraft or somewhere, but is not backing any current content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not clearly notable, and could be covered briefly in StarCraft. Current article is too close to a HOWTO/GAMEGUIDE, as already mentioned. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Some atricles about it:
This is the most detailed expansion pack for Starcraft 1. Even more deteiled than Retribution or Insurrection. I suggest shortening instead of deletion. Christo161 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161
- These are primary sources, and cannot be used for establishing notability (WP:GNG). Article length also does not reflect on notablity, only sources do. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There were some Hungarian reviews in PC Guru and Gamestar magazines. Are those count? Christo161 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161
- Probably, can you access and cite them? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Did some searching, couldn't find any reliable, third party sources. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are the Hungarian reviews (scanned from magazines):
- gamestar 2001 june page1
- gamestar 2001 june page2
- pc games 2002 march page1
- pc games 2002 march page2
- pc games 2002 march page3
Christo161 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161
- (edit conflict) Two of those look like interviews, if I'm not mistaken. I'm afraid interviews are somewhat borderline when WP:GNG is concerned, because they are basically developer talking (not independent source). They can be used as good sources for development though. The old2/old3 pages look like a proper review though. I don't really know what WP:VG/RS would say on this source and what their editorial review is, but it would seem a printed magazine should be a reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this small review also:
Christo161 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161
- I'm afraid this one won't do for WP:GNG, because it is not significant coverage, and it is basically a directory listing with a short, generic description. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, no significant independent coverage. Might be appropriate on a gaming/mod wiki, but not here. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2012 (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.