Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandonia (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The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonia

Contested prod, I felt it could use some discussion. Looks like a very old AFD here that resulted in a delete. I'm going with Delete on this one, there's only one source that could be even close to reliable, and I'm not sure the website passes WP:WEBI'm also gonna bundle Abandonia Reloaded into here (another prior AfD, Keep result), they look like the same site. Also nominated -

--UsaSatsui 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The issues with Abandonia have been resolved, in my opinion, therefore I change my opinion (on that page) to Keep. --UsaSatsui 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Nomination completely withdrawn. --UsaSatsui 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also want to adress some misconceptions you have presented:

Abandonia Reloaded is not the same site, even though it may seem like that on the first glance. It does have the same owner, some of the staff take care of both places (or rather took before moving over to Reloaded completely) and both share the same layout. However, while Abandonia is an abandonware site, Abandonia Reloaded is all about freeware. Consequently, each site's subject appeals to a different community. The two should not be considered the same. If you want to nominate the AR for deletion, please do so in a separate AfD. Thank you

Blogs and forums may be considered questionable as sources for encyclopedic information, however they can be used as primary sources.

For references, I'll take a pick from our press archive in which we collect links to online articles and scans of newspaper articles about the site (or mentioning it in a significant manner)

Online: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

Scanned newspaper articles: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

--The Fifth Horseman 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First off, let me clear up another misconception. Somebody prodded this, I saw it, decided it shouldn't be deleted without discussion, and took it to AfD. I added a Delete opinion because as the articles stood, I felt they should be deleted. I've got nothing "against" the article whatsoever. I call them as I see them.

Okay, the print sources are easily enough to establish notability, but none of them are listed in the article, and are still not even though you "added" sources (don't just link to the press release section on the site, use WP:CITE). Some of those web references may be too, but I can't read them, so I don't know. The references listed in the article are unacceptable...Sure, forums are primary sources, but Wikipedia references secondary sources. So get the sources in, and I'm satisfied.

Now, for Reloaded...still no sources on it. notability is not inherited), just being related to Abandonia doesn't save it. I still feel it's similar enough to be bundled, "Make another AfD" is a stalling tactic. If you can find some good sources for that site, or merge it into Abandonia, then that'd be great.--UsaSatsui 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the press links above. If you want to trim some websites, you might want to take a look at Category:Webcomics, it's starting to stink again. - hahnch e n 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Horseman. --Abi79 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in Die Zeit alone makes it notable and valid for inclusion. This page should be improved, not deleted. User:Krator (t c) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those scanned news articles establish notability for sure. Not sure about Abandonia Reloaded, but it could probably be merged as a section of Abandonia instead of deleting it, if it does not have sufficient notability on its own. — brighterorange (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added 5 references, old invalid references moved to notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye Olde Anarchist (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. I'll withdraw my Delete opinion on Abandonia, but I still see issues with the other page. Plus, since this is a contested prod, I'd like to see the prodders get an opinion in. --UsaSatsui 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged articles Abandonia and Abandonia Reloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye Olde Anarchist (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be no real references for the notability of Abandonia Reloaded, I have completed the merge by replacing the article and its' Talk page with appropriate redirects. Fixed up the references a little bit too, since two of those you added were at best borderline. --The Fifth Horseman 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work The Fifth Horseman. ----Ye Olde Anarchist 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. The prodders haven't bothered to show up and comment either, so I'll withdraw the nomination. --UsaSatsui 20:00, 11 September 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.