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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

After two deletion nominations, the article still has no multiple, reliable sources establishing notability. Delete as per WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Besides the PC Zone review cited in the article and the other sources brought up in the previous AfDs, there's a GamersHell news item and brief mentions at Eurogamer and Blue's News. SharkD (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of those sources provide "significant coverage", as is required per WP:NOTE.--Peephole (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, the PC Zone article is a review and is therefore significant coverage. SharkD (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage available seems to be adequate to me. JulesH (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: computer 'zines are fairly marginal sources, and the type of coverage they give games is generally does not give enough depth to form a suitable basis for an encyclopaedic article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Computer zines are the sort of sources that exist for this sort of material., & are reliable enough for the purpose. DGG (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: that after multiple AfDs, the "sort of sources that exist for this sort of material" has failed to verify the vast majority of the material in the article would appear to confirm that this material does not form the basis for an encyclopaedic article. Game reviewers and encyclopaedia writers have very different priorities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's early 2009 and this was created mid-2004, enough time has passed for someone to make a case for this article via multiple sources. The PC Zone source is a good reliable one but it is extremely unlikely that it is substantial due to this being an online game. No matter how big it is, it's a single source, and that doesn't cut WP:N. No prejudice at all against recreation should additional reliable sources which are at least moderately in-depth be found. Someoneanother 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep man, three attempts to kill it, somebody sure has something in for Planetarion i tell you what. i am unsure as to what those who want to delete it would properly accept as evidence for notability -- on its own merits the game has been around since 2000 and i am kinda surprised it is still going so welp Pthag (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that ain't nothin' until you see the attempts to "kill" WP:AFD/FUCK. MuZemike 09:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, by the way. There is at least one good reliable source in the article (the print one) and the ones found above. There's enough there that should pass for notability. MuZemike 09:10, 9 February 2009 (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.