Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplayer 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplayer game

• Delete Information is redundant and mostly irrelevant. Bulbous 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The information is a good home for a summary and expansion on the subject matter.BcRIPster 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Redundant with what? Irrelevant to what? — brighterorange (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopaedic - sourcing is poor, but some is provided. WilyD 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but could use a better article title and a few more sources. --Alan Au 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a little cleanup and some sources, but a good article. Also, please elaborate Bulbous, I didn't get the nomination. Which policies does it break etc. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Important gaming concept. Nom fails to mention any valid reason it should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or move The page Multiplayer game (disambiguation) should be moved here, this page should be moved to Multiplayer game (video game), or merged into a videogame article. Links to more encyclopedic articles, such as N-player game, should not be hidden under layers of crufty teen subjects. Pete.Hurd 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems too large and well-formed to delete. Often you can make this call at a first glance. YechielMan 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  Let me suggest that you have a responsibility to do due diligence, more than a "first glance", before you opine Pete.Hurd 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's an important article, and seems fairly well-written. Powelldinho 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is of importance. Needs a bit of cleanup, but nothing really wrong with it. A lot of the information cannot be found in any other article. --FlyingPenguins 05:03, 23 January 2007 (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.