Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabal Online

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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal Online

Blatant game-guide for a game that isn't even released yet. (Closed beta means only the playtesters can play it.) This article is wholly unsourced and it isn't clear how it could possibly be an encyclopedic subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant ad. fails WP:VER,WP:RS,self published resources. Ste4k 09:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising and listcrufty. SM247^{My Talk} 10:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because there is no cabal. And because it fails every reasonable test for inclusion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG's comment on TINC. Oh, crystal ballism and unverifiability as well. Ifnord 15:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Quote from news article: "Cabal, one of Asia’s most successful RPG games is launching its English beta across Europe this month." Not unverifiable and not crystal ball. However, based on that, I'm not afraid of deletion because I'm sure it'll get recreated again once the fact that the English version is beta won't be an excuse to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 22:31Z
• I agree with Quarl; this thing is big enough that the article will be recreated again soon enough anyway. The real problem is with the article content, not the fact that it exists at all. Needs someone like Ladlergo to go through and fix this like he did the Silkroad Online article. fonetikli 01:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• If it's in restricted beta there is surely no way it can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Beta testing means it is being released to a small group of real-world testers, to be tested. It's usually the last step before release. The article needs some cleanup, not deletion. Why delete something so it can be recreated in a few months (or whatever)? Video games are not considered advertisement (necessarily). Royalbroil 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• It has been asserted, several times, that we'll need to recreate this article in a few months. I'm not seeing any claim of notability in this article, per WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. What in this article implies that we'll need it in a few months? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been claimed (elsewhere) to be "one of Asia's most successful RPG games". If it became popular among the English-speaking world then I would want to keep it then. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 05:37Z
    • If that claim can be sourced to a reliable source, I'd withdraw this nomination right now. Notability doesn't necessarily have to mean notability to English speakers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • gamezone.com, myth-games.com, gamespot.com have called it "the smash hit Korean MMORPG action game", "one of Asia's most successful RPG games", "the popular Korean MMOG". GameSpot is the most reputable of these. It may be non-notable to the English-speaking world as of now; I'm simply predicting its English-notability will rise when the game is released. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 11:00Z
        • Got links? If these aren't just press-release copy-pastes, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. Even if the game is opened to public, no claim to notability stated or implied beyond the obvious psychic press release. Tychocat 13:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, WP:NOT a crystal ball. notability claims above not verified. I'm curious how it can be a "smash hit" when it's a closed beta. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:43, 8 July 2006 (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.