Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Silver Lining (game)
- 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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Silver Lining (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is an unreleased fan-game, an apparent homage/unofficial sequal to the King's Quest series. While it's rife with good intentions, it just doesn't seem all that notable, aside from a cease and desist order from Vivendi - and if cease-and-desist orders are qualifications for notability, then Action Jackson IV's dating history should be a featured article :-D Beyond self-published claims of being "one of the largest fangame projects", I can't quite see how this is more than crystal ballery. It is, however, a rather well-written article, not quite as self-promoting as one would expect, and perhaps being seven years in the making counts for something. Action Jackson IV 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This series does have a section in King's Quest, and works in the context of that larger article. I still see no need for a separate article. --Action Jackson IV 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reputable third party source I see is Gamespot, and its page on the project consists primarily of Date released: TBA. Crystal ballery, as you say. Nothing else in the article is supported by verifiable third-party sources. It should probably be recreated when there's an actual game to discuss and third party sources discussing it.--Moonriddengirl 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not quite true, see for example the links I put below. --Allefant 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was true. :) It's not true now. --Moonriddengirl
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First, while it's endorsed by the original makers of Kings Quest, it is a fan-based work - hedges a bit on our thoughts on fanfiction, yet not. Second, like Moonriddengirl, I'm not seeing many sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the whole story makes it notable (someone should add references to the article though), it apparently received plenty of press coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4]). --Allefant 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The addition of third-party sources satisfies my concerns with it. It needs to be wikified, but it seems to meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 13 August 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.